1993 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 35th Parliament HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes only. The printed version remains the official version.
(Hansard)
TUESDAY, MAY 25, 1993
Afternoon Sitting
Volume 10, Number 8
[ Page 6473 ]
The House met at 2:04 p.m.
Prayers.
E. Barnes: I have the pleasure of introducing Mr. Mbulelo Rakwena from South Africa, head of the secretariat for foreign affairs of the Azanian People's Organization, Azapo; Mr. Menziwe Mbeo, head of the Victoria-based Mophato Bursary Fund Society; and Mr. Jonathan Baker...pardon me, Mr. Jonathan Johnson. That's an interesting slip; Jonathan Baker, in case you're wondering, is a former alderman. Mr. Rakwena is here in Victoria on a four-day visit to update Canadians on current affairs in South Africa with respect to political transition, and he will be meeting with some members of my caucus later today. I would ask that all members make them welcome.
L. Hanson: In the gallery today is Miss Pauline Shaw and a very good friend of mine, Dorothy Gray. Pauline is a very special person. She was the winner of a gold medal for figure skating in the Special Olympics held in Salzburg, Austria, this past March. Pauline is now practising to participate in the Summer Games in Coquitlam, under the Special Olympics in gymnastics, and if she is successful she will go on to the Canadian finals in the Special Olympics. Would the House please join me in wishing Pauline the greatest of success and best wishes and in welcoming her to the House here in Victoria.
W. Hartley: On behalf of the member for Mission-Kent, I would like the House to welcome 40 students from Hatzic Elementary with their teacher Mr. Mills, and 35 students from Durieu Elementary with their teacher Mr. D. Hughes.
J. Macphail: It gives me great pleasure to see one of the outstanding teachers from my constituency, Mr. Tim Ames, in the galleries today with his students. I very much look forward to meeting with them later on and hope that they learn a great deal from us today. Please make them welcome.
R. Chisholm: It gives me great pleasure today to introduce an old friend from Alberta, Alice Mowick. She is here to gather lessons to take back to Premier Klein. Would you please make her most welcome.
J. Beattie: It's my pleasure today to have in the gallery a good friend of mine from Penticton, Al Tyhurst. Al came from the Prairies back in 1946 and has been a longstanding member of the New Democratic Party. He is active in local politics and is just a fine person overall. Next week is his seventy-sixth birthday. In welcoming him, I hope you'll extend a happy birthday to him as well.
Hon. A. Hagen: Today I had the very great pleasure of hosting Mayor Hiromi Kita and his wife Mrs. Sachiko Kita and councillors from Moriguchi, Japan, to lunch in the Legislature. New Westminster and Moriguchi have the oldest relationship of sister cities in our province. It was a great pleasure to have them as guests of our Legislature today.
PROVINCIAL CREDIT RATING
Hon. G. Clark: I rise to make a ministerial statement. I'm pleased to advise the House that British Columbia's credit rating has been affirmed as the highest among Canada's provinces. Today Standard and Poor's, a major New York rating agency, affirmed British Columbia's credit rating at AA+. On May 14, 1993, B.C.'s credit rating was affirmed by three other rating agencies: Moody's from New York, Canadian Bond Rating Service from Montreal and Dominion Bond Rating Service from Toronto. The recent down-grading of the federal government debt by Canadian Bond Rating Service means that British Columbia now has the same rating as the nation. However, this puts downward pressure on all of the provinces.
These 1993 ratings attest to the strength of the province's economy and the government's fiscal management performance. In our first budget, in 1992, the government outlined its commitment to deficit reduction. We have reduced the deficit from $2.4 billion when we took office to $1.5 billion this year. During our first budget year, 1993, we reduced the deficit below $2 billion and brought expenditures in below budget. In the current year, 1993-94, the deficit is down to $1.5 billion and spending is projected to grow at only 5.7 percent, down from the 13 and 12 percent growth rates of the previous government.
B.C.'s economic outlook is improving. In 1993 we expect 3.2 percent growth. In 1994 we expect 3.4 percent growth. This means more jobs and opportunities for British Columbians. We expect the improvement in the economy will create 35,000 jobs this year and 36,000 jobs next year. Our leading indicators are positive. Retail sales in February were up 12.3 percent compared to February 1992. Housing starts remain strong. In April 1993, housing starts were up 19 percent from April 1992.
Our economy is outperforming every other Canadian province. We are bringing down the deficit, protecting critical services and creating a climate for investment in British Columbia. In confirming our ratings, all four North American credit-rating agencies have in effect endorsed the government's fiscal plan.
We intend to continue our course of action. We said we would eliminate the deficit and we intend to fulfil this commitment.
F. Gingell: Hon. Speaker, like members of the government caucus, I am pleased that the four bond-rating agencies have maintained British Columbia's credit rating. I warn this Minister of Finance, however, to be very careful about picking statistics that happen to prove the particular point he's making. You can live and die by these statistics. Economic growth in British
[ Page 6474 ]
Columbia has been slow at best, and it has been in spite of this government, not because of it.
I appreciate that this government inherited from the previous government the practice of increasing spending, which leaves something to be desired. I understand the kinds of problems they were faced with, but federal and provincial governments must learn and understand the difficult times. You have managed to scrape through this time, but don't play chicken with the B.C. economy and the deficit. Bring in good tax laws and economic programs that will cause good economic growth in this province, because otherwise our credit ratings will be taking the same kind of route that they have in Ontario, Newfoundland and the prairie provinces.
[2:15]
J. Weisgerber: Talk about cutting the cloth to fit the issue! Here's a government that in its first year in office saw the credit rating of this province drop from AAA to AA+, and that is now trying to maintain that keeping a rating only as good as the rest of the country is something to be proud of.
The reality is that this government has come into office and increased provincial debt at an incredible rate, doubling it in two years, by an amount equal to that accumulated in 125 years by all governments combined. It's no wonder that bond-rating agencies are nervous about what this government is doing. To deliberately misinterpret this information on credit ratings is not acceptable. The Minister of Finance has selected certain items and tried to intimate that somehow the bond-rating agencies are endorsing his government's actions. Nothing could be further from the truth. They are sending out a clear warning to this government and to every other government in the country to get their spending in line with their incomes.
Bond ratings in British Columbia and across the country will fall unless the government is prepared to take the kinds of tough steps that this government, this Finance minister and this Premier to date haven't had the courage to do. When they have found the courage that they were so willing to talk about in the throne speech and when they've taken some real action, then I will be willing to endorse those actions. But today those words ring hollow, hollow, hollow.
LABOUR DISRUPTIONS IN SCHOOLS
F. Gingell: Strikes in the school system have been continuing for weeks now. The Vancouver strike appears to have no resolution between the BCTF and school trustees. Both the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Labour continue to tell this House that there's no more money. Schools in Surrey are now out. Bulkley Valley is on strike. Kitimat teachers are on strike. North Vancouver....
The Speaker: Your question, hon. member.
F. Gingell: The Labour Relations Board has not said that grade 12 is an essential service, only that it could be. Now the Premier says that he has a deadline.
The Speaker: Order, order. Hon. member....
F. Gingell: I'm going to ask a question right now.
The Speaker: I do hope that the hon. member is stating the question immediately.
F. Gingell: Hon. Speaker, the Premier has said that he has a deadline, but he won't tell us when it is. This is adding to the confusion. Will the Premier today make public when his deadline is?
Hon. M. Harcourt: The Minister of Labour would be more than pleased to bring the Leader of the Opposition and the House up to date on the discussions that he has had with the school trustees of the Vancouver School District and with the teacher union representatives.
The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. Leader of the Official Opposition.
F. Gingell: This posturing by the Premier with an imaginary deadline is not convincing anyone. Will you please take the pressure off? Tell us when your deadline is, or tell us if you really believe that having an imaginary, secret deadline is going to get this matter resolved?
Hon. M. Sihota: I'm pleased to advise the House that this government is working to resolve this and other disputes. I'm pleased to advise the House that 43 of the 50 contracts settled to date have been settled without any type of disruption whatsoever.
With regard to this situation in Vancouver, I'm pleased to advise the hon. member that this morning I had occasion to meet with representatives from the Vancouver School Board and representatives from the Teachers' Federation representing the teachers in Vancouver. I had lengthy discussions with them and told them that the government does have some deadlines in place with regard to designation of essential services. I advised them that it was our preference that they get back to the bargaining table and told them that we expected them -- I'll speak slowly so the hon. member can understand -- to get back to the bargaining table. The teachers made a commitment....
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please. I must ask the House to come to order and listen to the answer to the question. I must ask the minister to quickly wind up his reply.
Hon. M. Sihota: We advised the parties that we expected them to get back to the bargaining table. I'm pleased to inform the House that teachers have agreed
[ Page 6475 ]
to meet with Mr. Foley tomorrow and that the trustees will consider this request tonight. I'm pleased to advise the House that as far as the designation decision goes, we've indicated that we will not make a decision today.
G. Farrell-Collins: It's amazing that after two and a half weeks -- we're now into our third week -- the minister is pleased that there's more talk going on. What the House wants to know, what the people of this province want to know, and what the students of British Columbia want to know is: what is the deadline? Are these students going to get back to school before the end of June, and are they going to be able to write their exams and score reasonably well?
Interjections.
The Speaker: I will wait for order before I recognize the minister.
The Minister of Labour.
Hon. M. Sihota: What the people of British Columbia want to know is: why is it that the Liberal opposition never once in this House raised the issue of the Powell River dispute? It's out of sheer political expediency that they want to raise the Vancouver issue now. They had no concern about the welfare of the students in Powell River. The hon. member never once raised the issue of Powell River.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please. Again I must ask the House to remain in order while questions are being answered. I must remind the minister to please address the question and do so as briefly as possible.
Hon. M. Sihota: I appreciate that there are divisions within the Liberal Party and that those calculations drive the questions that come up in this House -- hence, no questions on Powell River; hence, questions today on Vancouver, when the hon. member knows full well that this government has made a commitment. We met with the parties today, and a course of action has been developed as a consequence. We fully expect and hope that the parties will meet with Mr. Foley tomorrow.
The Speaker: A supplemental, hon. member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove.
G. Farrell-Collins: What this minister should know is that the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast was involved in that dispute from day one until the last day. It's his constituency, and he can deal with it of his own accord.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please.
Interjections.
The Speaker: I call the House to order!
Hon. members, I asked for order so that the minister could answer a question; I think, in courtesy, we also must have order so that members can ask a question.
Please proceed with your question.
G. Farrell-Collins: When a member of my caucus chooses to involve himself in a dispute and asks to deal with it on his own, then I allow him to do that.
The Speaker: Question?
G. Farrell-Collins: What the people of British Columbia want to know.... The people of the Bulkley Valley, Surrey and North Island had to wait six weeks, because this minister didn't do anything. When are these people and these students going to know what the Premier's imaginary deadline is? When are the students finally going to get back to classes in British Columbia?
Hon. M. Sihota: The hon. member is quite correct: the leader of the Liberal Party did do a good job discussing these issues with me from time to time outside the House. The point here is that the hon. Liberal Labour critic never once raised these issues, and I suspect that's partially because he's the co-chair of Gordon Campbell's campaign team. I have to wonder whether it's true that Gordon Campbell is now setting the agenda for questions to be asked by the opposition.
The Speaker: A final supplemental, hon. member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove.
G. Farrell-Collins: The minister may find himself to be humorous and his caucus may find him to be humorous, but the reality is that the people of this province are dismayed and disgusted by the inaction of this minister and this Premier...
The Speaker: Your question, hon. member.
G. Farrell-Collins: ...in dealing with the strikes in this province. When are the students going to get back into classes? When is the Premier finally going to take charge of his government and his cabinet and get the students of British Columbia, including his own, back into school where they belong?
Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. Speaker, the only thing that's humorous in British Columbia today is the state of the B.C. Liberal Party.
J. Weisgerber: My question is the Minister of Education. The Minister of Education has an obligation to ensure that all students have equal access to education. This minister has a responsibility to demand that education be deemed an essential service and that teachers be ordered back to work. When is the minister going to live up to her responsibility to the students, parents and the teachers of British Columbia?
Hon. A. Hagen: The current disputes in two or three districts in the province concern all of us. We need
[ Page 6476 ]
the timely support of teachers and boards to recognize their responsibilities to students to ensure that classes are open, so that all students have an opportunity to learn. Throughout the current disputes this government has offered its support to those people who are responsible for making decisions and settling those disputes within the resources available to them. The Minister of Labour has just outlined to this House the course of action which he took this morning in meeting with the parties and in getting their cooperation for a speedy resolution. That, hon. member, is what will ensure a stable, secure education for the students who are currently affected by these disputes.
The Speaker: Supplemental, Leader of the Third Party.
J. Weisgerber: The two or three districts that the minister so casually dismisses contain about 100,000 students. The minister is so firmly under the thumb of Ray Worley and the BCTF that she's afraid to take any action to get students and teachers back to the classroom. Will the minister stand up for her responsibility as the Minister of Education, put her job on the line and demand that education be deemed an essential service and that teachers be ordered back to work immediately?
Hon. A. Hagen: This minister, since she was given responsibility for the children of this province, has stood up for them. The children of this province are a responsibility which we all share. We, as government, have a responsibility for children -- so do school districts, and so do teachers' organizations.
[2:30]
There is, in fact, no sacred cow in this particular dispute. There is a responsibility for boards and teachers to exercise their rights, as responsible parties, and to come to resolution of these disputes within the resources available. There is a responsibility of this government, through the good offices of the Minister of Labour and its cabinet and caucus, to support those endeavours. I am very hopeful that those parties, having recognized that they alone can find that resolution, will do so in a timely way and that every student will be back to school within the next few days.
J. Weisgerber: I think the minister doth protest too much. The BCTF's submission to the Korbin commission boasted: "On average, in the first four and a half years of teachers' collective bargaining, a B.C. student will have lost less than 0.8 of a day of classes per year. That's less" -- according to the BCTF -- "than the time lost to sniffles and snowfall. There hasn't been a measurable long-term impact on students' progress flowing from any teachers' strike." In light of that ridiculous statement, in the circumstances in British Columbia today, is the Minister of Education and Deputy Premier prepared to stand up and commit the government to provincewide collective bargaining to put an end to this nonsense?
Hon. A. Hagen: This member brought in the current scheme of bargaining during the tenure of the previous government. Our government has said we want to look at the nature of bargaining in the public sector, including education. We have asked Commissioner Korbin to do that. Her report is due very soon. I have said unequivocally that this government will be looking at that report in a timely way. As Minister of Education I will be very interested in that report and ways in which, over the long term -- not with legislation that's brought in the back door with the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Education not even knowing about it -- we can establish a regime of collective bargaining in the education sector that will serve our students and is also fair to the people who work in that system. We are committed to doing that as we work with the Korbin commission in the year ahead.
ABORIGINAL AWARENESS WEEK
Hon. A. Petter: It's a privilege to announce today that the week of May 24 to 28 has been proclaimed Aboriginal Awareness Week in British Columbia. It's fitting that the province is officially proclaiming this week for the first time in 1993, given that the International Year of the World's Indigenous People has been declared by the United Nations, and given that the theme of that year is a new partnership.
This government is working hard to build a new partnership with aboriginal people in this province. We are honouring a commitment that was made to first nations to set right longstanding injustices, and to address issues of fundamental importance to aboriginal peoples. Just last week the Treaty Commission Act was introduced, marking a final step in the process of establishing the British Columbia Treaty Commission. By moving toward the negotiation of fair and honourable treaties with first nations, we are striving to build a stronger, more just and prosperous British Columbia for all citizens.
I wish to emphasize the importance we attach to including all British Columbians in building this new relationship with aboriginal people. To that end, Aboriginal Awareness Week will provide an opportunity for British Columbians to become more aware of aboriginal people, and to learn more about aboriginal peoples' heritage, languages and cultures. It is only through this awareness and knowledge that we can move closer to understanding and respecting one another. Many aboriginal cultural events are taking place during this week and throughout the international year. I encourage all members of this House to attend and participate whenever possible.
I would like to briefly share with the House the text of the proclamation, which reads as follows:
"Whereas the Government of British Columbia acknowledges and wishes to support the United Nations in declaring 1993 the `International Year of the World's Indigenous People,' and
"Whereas the diversity of the heritage and culture of aboriginal peoples in British Columbia is recognized and valued, and
[ Page 6477 ]
"Whereas the government of British Columbia wishes to encourage trust, cooperation and understanding between First Nations and all other British Columbians by proclaiming Aboriginal Awareness Week, and
"Whereas Our Administrator, by and with the advice and consent of the Executive Council, has been pleased to direct by Order in Council in that behalf that a Proclamation be issued designating 1993 as `International Year of the World's Indigenous People' and May 24 to 28, 1993, inclusive, as `Aboriginal Awareness Week' in British Columbia;
"Now know ye that We do by these presents proclaim and declare that 1993 shall be known as the `International Year of the World's Indigenous People' and that May 24 to 28, 1993, inclusive, shall be known as `Aboriginal Awareness Week' in the Province of British Columbia."
V. Anderson: I rise to affirm recognition of the International Year of the World's Indigenous People with the United Nations, and commend them for this awareness that all of us must have. Part of our history, as in many countries of the world, has been vastly overlooked as we extended empires and neglected the people who were originally on many of the lands that were overtaken. Within our own land, it is important that we celebrate and recognize Aboriginal Awareness Week, not only in this week of May 24 to 28, but every day, all year.
We have lived side by side for many generations in this country, and it is a shame upon all of us that we have not had that kind of awareness of each other and not lived in common cooperation. It is important that we highlight the need to do so, and this is one opportunity.
J. Weisgerber: I'm delighted to have an opportunity to join in recognition of this week as Aboriginal Awareness Week. Indeed, it's something that we should be aware of 12 months of the year -- year in and year out -- and not only in a year that is designated by the United Nations.
British Columbia has a marvellous history of aboriginal languages, heritage and culture, which are so diverse in this province. There is no other region of North America -- or, to my knowledge, anywhere in the world -- that has the richness and diversity of language, culture and heritage that this province has. I think that as British Columbians we are just coming to recognize what a tremendous wealth, asset and heritage we have as British Columbians -- not only aboriginal people -- and I hope that we will continue to focus on this tremendous heritage we have as a province and as people, and join with aboriginal people in preserving, as we have been doing over the last few years, this treasure that we have in British Columbia.
H. Lali: I request leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
H. Lali: I notice in the galleries here today one of my aboriginal leaders from Yale-Lillooet. Would the House please make Chief Byron Spinks of the Lytton first nation welcome.
G. Farrell-Collins: On a point of order with regard to question period today and standing order 47A, of which you've reminded us numerous times. I would ask the Speaker perhaps to take some time to review question period and make a ruling on that. We do so on a regular basis and find that questions seldom extend beyond 30 seconds and answers of late have been up to almost two and a half to three minutes. Hon. Speaker, in the interests of standing order 47A and balance and fairness in this House, I would ask that you make a ruling certainly on some of the answers we are receiving from the government, including today.
The Speaker: On the point of order, the Government House Leader.
Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. Speaker, I don't think the problem is with the rule or the answers or the questions. The problem is that the hon. member can dish it out but has trouble taking it.
The Speaker: Is this a submission on the point of order, hon. member from Chilliwack?
R. Chisholm: Yes, it is, hon. Speaker. As a matter of fact, we've done a study. The government has broken the rule 54 times, and that was with two and a half minutes; the opposition has only done it eight times. The whole point is: if we are to have a question period and to justify a question period, both sides of the House have to honour both sides of the House. Until that happens and until we obey article 47A, I am afraid we're in for trouble with question period.
The Speaker: On the point of order, as hon. members well know, the Chair has from time to time reminded the House about the rules of question period. While the Chair is hesitant to intercede any more than is absolutely necessary, I would remind hon. members that the Chair does try to keep a close watch on questions and answers and does do an analysis from day to day. I can only urge those members who are asking questions to be as brief as possible and to state their questions without argument or opinion, and I can only urge those ministers answering questions to do exactly the same. But in the end, the Chair needs to rely on the cooperation of both sides of the House to ensure that question period goes as smoothly as possible and without disruption. I would ask all members to review the standing order related to question period and the guidelines -- as all of you have been asked to do from time to time -- and to try to follow those guidelines.
Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. Speaker, I call committee stage on Bill 22, the Treaty Commission Act, in this chamber.
I also advise members that Committee of Supply A will convene in the Douglas Fir Room to deal with the estimates of the Ministry of Environment.
[ Page 6478 ]
TREATY COMMISSION ACT
The House in committee on Bill 22; E. Barnes in the chair.
On section 1.
G. Wilson: In opening this committee stage, let me say that section 1 of this particular bill, the interpretation, has much to be debated and discussed because the definitions provided are what the minister needs to clarify for us. It's important for us to note that the definitions, particularly with respect to the agreement, recognize that this act is -- one would assume -- almost an enabling piece of legislation allowing an agreement previously made to proceed, without reference to or debate in the Legislative Assembly.
[2:45]
We spoke on the bill in second reading, saying that we generally supported it in principle. There is some concern -- certainly within the mind of this member -- that this is a very complex bill that has been with this minister for well over two weeks and that is now before us in committee stage, with invitations already submitted to a reception to hail its passage tomorrow. I find that to be contemptuous of this parliament and the members that are elected to debate the issues on it. I want that to be on record in Hansard. When a bill with such magnitude comes before the people of this province, there should be no constraint or restriction on their time to debate this without pushing us into early hours in the morning to have that debate concluded -- notwithstanding a party that the minister and the government may wish to have to celebrate its passage.
Having said that, perhaps I'll yield to the member from Langara, and then we'll go through section 1.
V. Anderson: When we look at this first interpretation section, we do need to get some clarification of its meaning. In the first section, when we talk about the agreement between the various parties, it says: "...any amendments thereto that may be made from time to time." Could you explain by whom these amendments are to be made, how they will be made and what the position is of those amendments?
Hon. A. Petter: Let me say, first of all, that the purpose of the legislation is not simply to give effect to the agreement -- the agreement could have stood without the legislation -- but to provide an opportunity for the Legislature to debate its provisions, and to give them legislative legal status. I see the member shaking his head in a negative direction. I take it what he means by that is that the agreement provides for an introduction of legislation. My point is that the treaty commission could have functioned without an opportunity for public debate in this Legislature had the parties agreed.
The opportunity to come to this Legislature and debate it is a strong signal that we as government, and parties to this agreement, want to see a full airing of the issues and want all members to have an opportunity to participate in the debate on these important issues. I see it very much as affirming the desire for a full, open discussion expressed by the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast.
With respect to his comments about the passage, those matters were discussed and agreed to among House Leaders, and I'll leave him to work out those disagreements within his own caucus. But certainly it's our intention to afford a full opportunity for debating all the issues that he might wish to raise.
With respect to the issue raised by the member for Vancouver-Langara, the way in which the agreement might be amended is the way in which it was entered into by the three principals; that is, the first nations summit and the federal and provincial governments would have to agree to it. But I would hasten to add that the legislation has the force of law and must therefore take priority over the agreement. So if amendments were contemplated that in any way contradicted the legislation, those amendments would require a change in legislation in order to be effective.
V. Anderson: Since the minister has raised the question, perhaps we might follow up. He has said that the agreement might stand in its own right. And he has just said now that the legislation would override the agreement, which requires clarification. Also, there were 19 recommendations that came out of the task force. We've had the task force and the agreement and now the legislation. The implication seems to be that each of these stands in its own right and has authority in its own right, and yet on the other hand the minister is saying they are separate from each other and each of them is not affected by what we're doing today.
Hon. A. Petter: I'd be happy to clarify that point. The three work together in a happy partnership. The agreement refers to the excellent recommendations of the task force and the legislation refers to the agreement. The point I was making, in response to the comments earlier by the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast, was that one could have had an agreement without legislation. But it was the common desire of all the parties that there ought to be a legislative basis on which this process takes place, to give it stability and permanence and to provide an opportunity for the Legislature to debate this very important issue. For that reason the legislation provides a framework that will guide the process. The legislation is designed, however, to work in a complementary fashion with the agreement, which in turn works in a complementary fashion with the report. The point I was making is that should amendments be contemplated, they would necessarily have to be consistent with the legislation, because within the doctrines of parliamentary supremacy, this happy partnership does have an internal hierarchy, and the hierarchy is one in which the legislation has the force of law. The agreement carries with it political obligations, but ones that must be consistent with the law as it will when encompassed within this act if it's passed.
V. Anderson: Just a little further clarification on that same point. Is the minister saying then that neither
[ Page 6479 ]
the terms of the task force nor the terms of the agreement can be altered or changed without coming back to the Legislature?
Hon. A. Petter: I'm not saying that is the case. What I'm saying is that the agreement can be amended and those amendments can take place, as amendments to any agreement can, by virtue of the agreement of the three parties. In fact, there's explicit provision later in the act which deals with that very issue. However, any changes to the agreement must conform to the law; and if they didn't, they wouldn't be effective. So I'm assuming that if there were a change to the agreement that contemplated some change in the provisions of this act, that that would necessitate coming back to this Legislature and seeking a change to the act. If a change to the agreement can be accomplished within the framework of this act, then that change can take place without necessitating a change in the provisions of this legislation. Therefore there would be no necessity to come back and introduce a legislative amendment or have a debate on that change. However, it would require the concurrence of three parties and would no doubt receive a very public airing through debate in this Legislature, through question period, estimates debate or any number of other opportunities that the member might wish to avail himself of.
V. Anderson: To follow that up for a moment, it seems fairly important about how the future can progress. Would it be fair to say that if there were an agreement of the magnitude that even questioned that the facilitating committee we're setting up by this act would then be in a position to say that the parties were not in readiness to go ahead with negotiations.... Could it be of the magnitude that there is a check and balance which indicates readiness? If they need to go back and alter the agreement in any significant way, they would really be indicating that they did not have a common readiness to move ahead.
Hon. A. Petter: I'll try to be as clear as I can, but I'm not sure I fully understand the question. We may have to have another interchange, but I think the answer is that if there were a change to the readiness criteria as stated in the act, then that change would have to be brought about not only through a change to the agreement but also through a change to the legislation. If there were a change to the readiness criteria that was not inconsistent with the act but was a refinement that fell within the terms of the act -- because the agreement was more specific on some details -- then that would not necessitate a change in the legislation. The idea here is to provide some flexibility. If the commission finds itself in a situation where the more specific criteria set out in the agreement are not working for some reason, there will be an opportunity to make changes. However, if some more fundamental change is necessitated, then that would require a change in the legislation. What we have tried to accomplish through the legislation, in cooperation with the other two parties to the agreement, is to set out the fundamental terms under which the commission will operate. If changes to those fundamental terms are contemplated, then indeed changes to the legislation would be required. If changes to lesser elements of the agreement that can operate within those fundamental terms are contemplated, then no such amendments to the legislation would be required. But as I said before, there would be ample information shared about that and, no doubt, the member could raise it in debate in the Legislature.
V. Anderson: If I understand correctly -- and I think I've heard the minister fairly clearly in this regard -- what he is saying is that there is legislation to put the process into law, but that this legislation has, by design, left some openness -- flexibility, as he calls it -- outside of the law in order that the process not be hampered. I'll leave that for the moment.
When we go to the definition of "first nation," it talks about the aboriginal people within their traditional territory. This is a fairly key element in the discussion. How does the minister define and give meaning, in this particular sense, to traditional territory? How that is arrived at seems fundamental to the recognition of the first nations people who are part of the negotiation? It's a kind of circular discussion.
Hon. A. Petter: There are a number of chicken-and-egg elements in this whole process of treaty negotiation. We're trying to work towards a situation in which we recognize certain rights based upon notions like traditional territory. Indeed, the negotiation process will help us define the very things that will also help us determine who we should be negotiating with. The intention here is to give to the commission, in applying its criteria of readiness and ability to negotiate, some sense that there must a relationship between the particular first nation and the territory that is being claimed. Once that relationship is established to the satisfaction of the commission, it will then be left to the negotiating process to determine the extent to which that traditional territory is or is not recognized as asserted, and the form that recognition will take through the treaty process.
V. Anderson: To clarify then, the minister is saying that a first nations people would come forward and designate who their people are and how they have mandated them. These people would bring forth a description of the land which they designate as their territory. That designation would then be carried forward into the treaty discussions and, in the final analysis, might or might not be recognized within those treaty discussions. Am I right in that understanding?
Hon. A. Petter: Yes, I believe that's a correct understanding.
V. Anderson: I'll move along to the question of principals. Just for clarification here, I understand that the principals here refer to the aboriginal people as represented through the summit and as represented also by the two governments, the federal and provincial. Those three principals are given equal status within this agreement, if I understand that correctly.
[ Page 6480 ]
Hon. A. Petter: That's correct.
V. Anderson: Also, I'd like to have some description of "summit." Could the minister explain how the summit was arrived at? How many aboriginal people are part of that summit at the moment? If there are others who are not presently part of that summit, will they able to join over the period of time ahead of us?
Hon. A. Petter: Yes. The summit is an organization that was essentially formed for the very purpose of coming together to enter into treaty negotiations. You'll note in the act that summit is defined as "the body that is established to represent first nations in British Columbia that agree to participate in the process provided for in the agreement...." So the summit is, in a sense, a fluid organization of those first nations that wish to participate in this process.
[3:00]
I think it's a little difficult to pin down exact percentages. It's certainly my estimation that the preponderance of first nations in the province are affiliated with the summit, but it's by no means the case that all first nations are. However, by virtue of this definition, any first nations that wish to avail themselves of this process would be free to join in and therefore become part of the summit.
Having said that, I should make it clear that the task force report was very insistent that this be a voluntary process. It may not be a process that will suit all first nations, and we must accept that and expect that some first nations, for whatever reasons, may not wish to associate themselves with this particular process. For that reason, this is a voluntary organization. First nations must decide for themselves if they wish to be associated with the summit and, by doing so, with this process.
V. Anderson: Does that imply -- and I trust that it may well -- that those who do not wish to use this particular summit process to negotiate may have opportunities to use other processes that may be developed by the federal and provincial governments in working with them, so that they're not excluded in the future from dealing with their land claims in the same manner as others if they choose a process other than the summit?
Hon. A. Petter: I think I would answer in this way: a tremendous amount of effort has been expended over a number of years under a number of governments to produce this process. It's my very sincere hope that this process will, if not today then over time, prove itself and be one that at least the vast majority, if not all, of the first nations of the province, will choose to avail themselves of.
In the more abstract and hypothetical terms, which I as a minister am never encouraged to answer in, this government's commitment is to resolve these issues with the first nations in the province, and that means all first nations. If some, at the end of the day, do not find this process acceptable, then I think we as a government must be open to alternative processes. In some cases, some of the first nations may not find it acceptable because they view their relationship as a bilateral one with the federal government, and they don't believe that the province should have a co-equal role. That may give rise to a different formulation in which the province may not play a role, or at least will play a diminished role. So, in abstract terms, yes. In the more practical terms of today, it's my very sincere hope that over time this process will prove itself and recommend itself to the vast majority of first nations.
D. Jarvis: I assume that the summit is now based on the bands that agreed to sign up to participate in the process. During a briefing the other day, I asked your deputy how many bands had actually signed up for it, and he said that he didn't know, which was amazing to me. He said he would look into it and find out. Do you mean to say that at this point you still have not found how many bands of the 197 are a part of the summit and how many aren't?
Hon. A. Petter: One thing that one learns in this role is that aboriginal politics is almost as perplexing in this province as non-aboriginal politics. The summit is not an organization like a social club that one signs up to. It's an organization in which first nations choose to participate in or not to participate in. That choice may change over time. There is no membership role as such. Some first nations, for example, have participated in the summit at various stages and not at others. Some who have not participated in the past may choose to participate in the future. Some may choose to participate in the summit and other organizations that might appear to have conflicting goals. That causes some difficulty.
I've said my best estimation is that this organization represents certainly a preponderance of first nations in the province. The task force report made it very clear to us that it was for the first nations to organize themselves, not for us, as federal or provincial governments, to dictate to first nations how to do that. Our concern is that the summit represent those groups who choose to associate themselves with it. Those who do not need not avail themselves of the process. In my view, certainly the vast majority of first nations in the province have participated in the summit at some time.
G. Wilson: Let me say that every elected member of this assembly enjoys an effective lobby by a member to a minister, but I wonder if the lobby that's taking place between the member for Cowichan-Ladysmith and the Minister of Health might be done at slightly less volume so that we could, in fact, listen to this debate without distraction. I appreciate that.
The Chair: Order, please. The hon. member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast makes a very good point. I don't think he penetrated certain ears. I would ask the hon. members who are having conversations to keep in mind that we are in committee. There is a dialogue taking place that's difficult for members to hear. Just keep that in mind.
[ Page 6481 ]
G. Wilson: As I say, we all enjoy an effective lobby, but there is a time and a place.
I come back to the point that was raised by the member for Vancouver-Langara. It's a point of contention that I think needs to be clarified. The first point deals with the political legitimacy of this agreement. I read the British Columbia Treaty Commission agreement that was signed by the Premier, the Prime Minister and a series of representatives of first nations people. That came about as a result of the recommendations that were brought before this government and reviewed. I want to make it very clear that the minister has said that if there is a deviation from this Treaty Commission, this legislation may have to be amended. Yet clearly the interpretation under the agreement suggests that any amendments thereto may be made from time to time to this agreement.
Furthermore, when we get to the end of this bill and look at section 24, which we will discuss in more detail at that point, it says that nothing in this act must be interpreted as preventing the principals from amending the agreement. You can't have it both ways.
Furthermore, the Treaty Commission agreement required the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs to introduce legislation to the British Columbia Legislature to establish the commission as a legal entity. It would appear, for those that have not been as involved as the minister but who are reading what is written here, that this legislation under the definition of agreement provides legal status for what is here, and does not prevent this agreement from being amended from time to time. I wonder if the minister can clarify that point.
Hon. A. Petter: We can debate in more detail, as you suggest, when we get to those sections of the act which deal with that question. The situation is that the agreement is subject to law, and the act therefore takes precedence over the agreement. The agreement can be amended, but if any attempt were made to amend the agreement in a way that is inconsistent with the act, the amendment would be inconsistent with law and therefore ineffective. I made the point -- perhaps I should have made it with a little more care to the fine details, but I made the point -- that if one were to contemplate an amendment to the agreement that was in any way inconsistent with the act, it would follow that if the change were to be effective, one would have to amend the act as well. That's the point I was making.
G. Wilson: If that's so, then that is what it should say. If this is intended to be superior legislation for this legislative body and/or the federal legislative authority, which I understand is going to place mirror legislation before the people of Canada through the federal House, then presumably there should be something in here that says so. Nothing in this bill says that the agreement.... It seems to be the agreement; it has the signature of the Premier and the Prime Minister, and it gives broader powers to the commission than does this bill. There's nothing in here that says this should be prevented from happening. Maybe it shouldn't be prevented from happening. Maybe it's a good process for us to work through. Time will tell.
The point is, I think the people of B.C. need to know what the process is going to be with respect to clarification of that question. The way that the minister has described it, we're likely to walk into a potential confrontation over jurisdiction if we get into, let's say, readiness. The question of who is ready for negotiation and who isn't is going to be a very thorny issue.
Hon. A. Petter: I really didn't think I would have to explain to the hon. member that parliamentary sovereignty and legislative supremacy are fundamental notions that one doesn't have to state every time one enacts a bill. As a lecturer on some of these matters, I thought this would be understood.
The fact is that the agreement is a political agreement, not a contract. It's a political agreement reached among the principals, who desired to embody the fundamental principles of the agreement in an act. The two work happily together. The agreement provides some greater detail as to how the commission is expected to discharge its functions as articulated in the act. There is no reason for any concern. Everyone well understands that an act passed by this Legislature takes precedence, to the extent of any conflict over an agreement. However, I don't see any such conflict. At the time, the issue arose as a hypothetical question on what would happen if we in fact chose to amend the agreement. Very clearly, the answer is that any amendment that tried in some way to contradict the act would be ineffective by reason of the fact that one is legislation and the other is a political agreement. One doesn't have to state that for everyone in this country to understand it.
G. Wilson: I understand the academics and the legalities. I also understand that an expectation is being created through this commission, which I think is a positive one for all people, and that there are going to be some extremely difficult turns in this road we're now on. I think the minister mentioned in his opening statements that this is not going to be an easy course of action. Many variables will have to be looked at, and one of them is the authority of the agreement versus this legislation. Even as the minister shakes his head and says, "No, no, that isn't going to happen," a number of things can occur, one of which is a change in administration in the province. Another is a change in administration of the so-called summit -- who is a member and who isn't. There could be a change of political direction within B.C.'s complex and varied aboriginal politics, which the minister knows only too well.
There are many variables that can change. This commission, if it is to do its job effectively, has to make sure that its lines of jurisdiction are absolutely clear. The minister is saying that if the amendments will in some way counter the legislation.... I'm hearing a moral obligation, but I don't see any legal requirement for this House to have the opportunity to amend. As a result of that, the authority is being given to and rests with this commission, not with the duly elected Members of the Legislative Assembly.
[ Page 6482 ]
Hon. A. Petter: I'm very perplexed with this line of questioning. The commission could have been created without any opportunity for this Legislature to be involved, simply by providing for an agreement among the principals. The choice was not to do that. The choice was to create, through enabling legislation -- that's all this legislation is -- the recognition, in law, of the status of the commission and set down the general parameters under which the commission is expected to operate. For further guidance, there is reference made to the agreement, and through the agreement to the report of the task force. That will assist the commission in applying the general guidance of the legislation.
It's all working happily together. The member is imagining scenarios that simply do not exist. This is enabling legislation. No doubt the commission will have a very difficult task in deciding whether parties are or are not ready. Remember, changes to the legislation can only come about through changes in two legislatures. The summit changes to the agreement can only come about through agreement among the three parties. There is no likelihood of this causing a problem. What we have done here is provide legislation that sets out the general parameters and an agreement which provides greater detail; the two work very happily together.
[3:15]
G. Wilson: I accept that the minister is saying that these concerns don't exist now, and that I'm projecting into the future things that may or may not occur. That's absolutely what we're supposed to be doing as legislators when we enter into this proposition. We're supposed to look into the future to try to determine what may be obstacles and try to correct them in the base legislation that's initially brought in.
I point out to the minister that this is not an ordinary piece of legislation. Not only is there a question on a land claim that is up for discussion, but the whole question of jurisdiction over that land claim and status of government is under discussion and negotiation in this province. For the minister to simply dismiss this in forms of legislative academics is really unfortunate because this is a very complex set of negotiations.
Those of us who remember the constitutional round know how difficult those negotiations were. People who looked at the legitimate grievances of aboriginal people recognized there was something that needed to be done. We had to move relatively quickly so that the moderate forces in the administration of those bands would not lose to the more radical groups. We didn't want to see social disruption and unrest in Canada. We wanted to have just settlement -- all of us do.
What I'm trying to do is flag what might be a potential problem; I'm not trying to exacerbate this debate. I'm simply saying: "Has the minister thought this through?" One of the things that we are likely to run into in the process by which we are bringing this in -- and process is extremely important; I've already registered my concern with the time lines that have been given this debate -- is that amendments to the agreement will be forthcoming. Nobody knows how it's going to work. The players themselves are going to want to have that flexibility. I think it was correctly pointed out by the member for Vancouver-Langara that this bill provides maximum flexibility for that to occur. Probably that's the way it has to be in order to work.
What I need to hear the minister say is that the duly elected members of this Legislative Assembly will have final authority over the jurisdiction and discretion of this commission in its actions in the province of British Columbia; and that we will not, if the majority of those present are from the summit and from the federal government, be shackled into an agreement that the people of this province will not favour and that can be forced upon us by two parties, the federal government and aboriginal commissions.
I invite the minister to think back to this last constitutional round when there was a lot of closed-door meetings, a lot of negotiations and something that the political elites in this country came up with. In order for it to sell it has to be first of all understood by all British Columbians, aboriginal and non-aboriginal alike. Secondly, it has to meet the test that the provisions of settlement have to be of a quality that will not favour one set of people over another. Without that, it will not sell, and it will be a recipe for social disruption. I would like the minister's response to that.
Hon. A. Petter: I would remind the member that the Treaty Commission is a facilitator, a keeper of the process; it doesn't bind the government in any way. It is to advise governments and the First Nations Summit on a number of issues and through those governments to advise the public on a number of issues. There are ample protections built into this process. Indeed, one of the reasons I felt particularly pleased this was being brought forward to the Legislature in the form of legislation was that any fundamental changes in the operation of the commission would require the approval of the Legislature. You have my assurance on that, but the best assurance of that is the bill itself.
Interjection.
Hon. A. Petter: Well, you can't change legislation without bringing it back to the Legislature, hon. member. That happens to be the rules of this place. Beyond that, if there are changes to be made that are interstitial -- minor changes that in no way undermine the fundamental principles of this bill -- they can be made, but they can't be made by two parties, in the rather evocative way the member suggests, shackling the third. They require the approval of all three parties as well.
So you have two assurances. You have the assurance that this legislation sets out the fundamental principles under which the commission will govern, and that it cannot be changed except by this Legislature. Secondly, you have the assurance that the agreement itself, if it were to be changed in a way consistent with these fundamental principles, would still require the approval of all three parties, including the province of British Columbia.
[ Page 6483 ]
G. Wilson: I know that we're only in the very first section here with respect to definitions and therefore that we can't get into the powers of this commission in this debate, but we will. I just flag this minister's comments when he says that you can't amend this act without coming before the Legislature. I understand that. But you can amend the agreement that this act is all about, and the agreement does provide this commission with a far wider range of duties and powers than the act provides.
Hon. A. Petter: No, it doesn't.
G. Wilson: Well, when we get to that section, we'll go through it line by line, and I will point out where it does. We're looking here at enabling legislation -- the words the minister uses himself -- to empower this agreement. Therefore the people of British Columbia have to know that the agreement is at issue here as much as this legislation. You can't look at the two independently; they are intrinsically tied. My suspicion is that when you read the context of the agreement.... I'm not arguing that this is necessarily a bad agreement. It might be a very good agreement; it might be exactly what British Columbia needs. But let's not fool ourselves into thinking that when you come down to work out the terms of reference and the operational guidelines for this commission...it will be this agreement that will be used, not this legislation. The legislation itself -- and when we get to that section, we'll deal with it -- only provides that the governments may use the recommendations of this commission; and yet this commission agreement says very clearly that those powers are far more forceful.
However, having said that, I would like to move on to expand a little bit on the point raised by the member for Vancouver-Langara about first nations. In looking at that definition, I have some fairly significant concern with respect to three words, which are very important for us to look at. The first is "traditional territory." The minister says it's a chicken-and-egg question, and it is. But the question is: where do we put the emphasis -- on the egg or on the chicken? You can't do both equally here. This is a problem, because there are a very substantial number of aboriginal people in the province of British Columbia who do not live on reserve and whose rights have to be protected, maintained and looked after on a basis equal to those who do live on reserve. I then come to the second word I have difficulty with: "mandated." It says: "...mandated by its constituents." That's the third word: "constituents." I don't want to be inflammatory in my words here, but nevertheless, I think we need to get this debate thoroughly on the table; it's time that we did. I would far prefer to have members of first nations here to answer me directly on some of these questions -- that would be most helpful. In the parliamentary reform that I would advocate, they would have that opportunity. However, since they're not, what is the minister's view with respect to traditional territory and off-reserve aboriginal people? Presumably, these people may have status when they're living on reserve, but if they should move, if they are living off reserve, if they have families, if there's intermarriage and so on, then their status changes. They still have legal status under the Indian Act, but there's a different status within the province.
The second thing is "mandated." How is that mandate being done? I know the minister will likely say that's up to the aboriginal people, but nevertheless, there has to be some kind of jurisdictional agreement as to what that mandate is and how it is going to bind agreements. You can't have mandates change and therefore binding agreements contested.
Thirdly, when you talk about constituents that implies membership. Where's the membership? How was that determined? These are important issues. I'd like the minister to give us some direct answers.
Hon. A. Petter: First, on the question of traditional territory, I said in second reading debate that we will not serve ourselves well if we look to this act to accomplish all purposes for all circumstances, even in relation to aboriginal peoples. However, having said that, it's important to recognize that those aboriginal peoples who live off the land base but have an association with the traditional territory will be able to avail themselves of this process, just as Nisga'a citizens living in Prince Rupert or Vancouver have a stake in the Nisga'a negotiations right now and may become the beneficiaries under any agreement that's reached. That may be the case with other first nations citizens. For one reason or another, some first nations citizens may not have such an association, and this process will not address issues relating to their rights, so we'll have to arrange other initiatives for them. But the association with traditional territory is an important one. It is a bit of a chicken-and-egg question, as the member acknowledged and as I stated earlier. I think the commission would provide some advice to us as to how to work out that chicken-and-egg problem to get to the negotiating table. It does mean that first nations citizens throughout the province who have some association with their traditional territory will be able to participate through their first nations in negotiations. They are not being left out.
Secondly, on your question of mandate and constituents, that is a matter first nations must resolve for themselves. The task force report said: "...it will be important to the successful outcome of the negotiations that the people of the first nations have made their own choice. A clear decision, a strong mandate for the organization and its negotiators, and effective communications will enhance the prospects of reaching agreement, ratifying and implementing the treaty." They went on to recommend that the organization of first nations for negotiations is a decision to be made by each first nation. Having said that, however, it's important to recognize that when we get to the negotiating table, and if we get to address issues such as self-government or the way in which resources are managed, governments may well have an interest on behalf of all the citizens of the province to insist that there be certain mechanisms for accountability. These mechanisms would ensure that those who benefit under the treaty are representative of the people who
[ Page 6484 ]
have a relationship with that traditional territory. Through the substantive negotiations, governments may seek greater assurances as to the way in which aboriginal structures will represent their citizens. So again we have a bit of a problem: how we get to the table versus what we do when we get to the table. I don't think there are any easy answers. The task force report was very clear as to the approach we should take towards entering into negotiations. And getting to the table is an approach in which we respect first nations' rights to organize themselves and to create their mandates within their own organizational structures. That's very much the thrust of this legislation and agreement.
G. Wilson: I guess that is going to be a thorny issue, because as the minister pointed out, not all aboriginal people are members of the summit or even support the task force's recommendations. Some very vocal and well-organized groups have spoken out to the contrary on this. Presumably it comes back to what the member for Vancouver-Langara brought up -- and I think it was an excellent point and one that we have to look out for -- about what we do with groups that don't adhere to or subscribe to the summit and that don't anticipate this commission being able to look after their interests fairly. Therefore they want to have their rights heard by provincial and federal authorities -- which, I would argue, have a fiduciary obligation and responsibility for it, particularly in the federal case -- but are told that the process that has been accepted by the three parties is this one. Where do they go? The minister says that presumably there is going to be some kind of hearing or process. But is that in fact the case?
In looking at this question of the mandate by its constituents, what mandate process are we looking at that will be accepted by government? If in fact you're talking about a minority vote because only 15, 20 or 30 percent show up in whatever electoral process there may be, does that mean that the 50, 60 or 70 percent of the population that didn't vote, who were disenfranchised or who weren't somehow involved, are no longer the responsibility of this government in terms of their rights and the protection of their interests? Is the government of the province absolving itself of responsibility for any aboriginal people who don't fall under the summit notion? What is the minister's view on this?
[3:30]
Hon. A. Petter: As I stated earlier, once one gets into negotiations, there will be negotiations around questions of enrolment. The federal government has policies on issues of enrolment. Certainly governments will have a very strong interest in ensuring that all first nations citizens who are within a first nation or who might be represented by a first nation are represented, so that there can be no suggestion of outstanding legal obligation. Therefore one of the interests that will be brought to the negotiating table is an interest to ensure that the negotiations that take place are, from a first nations point of view, representative of all the first nations interests that ought to be represented.
Having said that, I daresay that some first nations representatives could critique our system -- and they have done so fairly well -- on the question of how representative it is of citizens. I think we must maintain a critical eye for others and also for ourselves. It's a delicate balance between respecting the rights of first nations to organize themselves on the one hand.... But I take the member's point very seriously. Certainly the government has an interest -- not merely as a matter of principle but from a legal point of view -- in ensuring that the treaties it reaches speak to the rights of all the citizens of that first nation, lest any of those citizens might claim that they still have unresolved rights which haven't been addressed in that treaty.
Through those processes of negotiation and enrolment, I'm sure there will certainly be an effort by governments to ensure that all citizens of a particular first nation are represented in the treaty negotiation and ultimately in the ratification process.
G. Wilson: I'm delighted to hear that, and I'm sure all members of first nations will be delighted to hear that. Can the minister tell us where in this legislation there is any discussion of that protection? As a matter of fact, I would argue that if you read this legislation in conjunction with the Treaty Commission, it would suggest that if in fact there's a division within the ranks of an organization, within a first nation, they won't even get into the negotiations, because they won't be deemed ready.
Hon. A. Petter: Just to remind the member, this legislation sets up a process to oversee and advise governments and the First Nations Summit on the negotiations, to facilitate negotiations as a keeper of the process. I think it's a mistake to in any way view it as dealing with the substance of those negotiations. The substance of those negotiations will not be the responsibility of the Treaty Commission; it will be the responsibility of the parties to those negotiations, which will include the first nations concerned in those negotiations, plus the federal and provincial governments. That's why it's not addressed in the legislation.
G. Wilson: Let's try to get a little more serious here. I don't mean to suggest that the minister isn't being serious, but this commission has the power and the duty to allocate funds -- and we'll deal with that when we get to the section -- that are provided to enable first nations to participate. This is the keeper of dollars that are financed by the provincial and federal governments. We have a fiduciary obligation and responsibility to the citizens who elect us, aboriginal and non-aboriginal. I was elected by.... As a matter of fact, I think I won every poll except for Sliammon, I believe it was, and I'm working on that one.
The situation I'm addressing here is that if the commission is to be effective in providing its advice to facilitate this kind of discussion -- and we all hope that it will be -- it's extremely important for us to know how the government is going to see its responsibility. Given that the bill says that this commission is not an
[ Page 6485 ]
agent of government, it's important for us to know how the minister and the government intend to approach an appeal -- if there is one -- under the definition of first nation on the question of traditional territory or mandate by constituents. Those are the two keys that are required in order for this first nation definition to apply to a particular group. How does one appeal if it is ruled that you have neither?
Hon. A. Petter: Again, I think one has to start from the situation as it is now and in other provinces, in which the federal government dispenses negotiating funds according to its own wishes. This process provides an independent body to make those assessments.
The member likes to engage in these arguments in which he imagines how much better it could be, with considerably more processing cost attached -- the best are the enemy of the good. The fact is, this process moves the decision about financing first nations from the more political environment of the federal government into the less political, independent environment of this commission, and that surely must be welcomed as a step forward. In addition, the commission, in its assessment of readiness -- maybe we should defer this discussion until we get to some of its powers -- will have to assure itself that the first nation does indeed have a clear mandate from its citizens. If that first nation does not have a clear mandate, it will, I'm sure, play into the commission's determination as to whether the first nation is ready. It will then be up to the first nation to demonstrate that the mandate does indeed exist.
G. Wilson: Some aboriginal people who have had an opportunity to look at this bill have concerns over this definition. They want to know how the mandate -- and they're talking about mandate by constituencies -- is to be determined. There's a myriad of ways in which the mandate may be done. They're concerned that they may be snookered by this if they have fractional political entities within their own organization that forever limit or make impossible their opportunity to come forward in a united front. What happens with those groups? If the minister says that it's up to them to sort it out and that the group will not be allowed to come forward until it does, will it hinder the speedy resolution of other negotiations? A band may be well organized and well along the way to having negotiated on the specific claims, the comprehensive claims may be moving forward and they're ready to come up with a final resolution to the question, but there's an overlapping jurisdictional issue with a neighbouring band that they can't deal with because the neighbouring band is not in a position to deal with it. Therefore the commission is going to say: "I'm sorry. Until you can sort that out, you can't come forward." This is a recipe for inaction.
Hon. A. Petter: The member makes a good point when he talks about the difficulty of addressing overlapping claims. With respect to his first point, however, surely the member wouldn't suggest that we set up a system in which those first nations that do not have a clear mandate be given funds to commence negotiations. That seems to me to be the alternative to what we have here. I think this legislation creates a incentive to first nations to try to assure themselves -- and through themselves to assure the commission and federal and provincial governments -- that there is a clear mandate.
On the question of overlapping claims, it's true that there may be difficulties in the sense that some first nations who are more ready to negotiate have overlapping claims with some who are less ready to negotiate. However, I would argue that most first nations will want to be in a position to come before the commission, and will therefore want to address the issue of overlapping claims. In the case of first nations, I would point out that the commission has a responsibility to ensure that issues of overlaps have been identified and a process has at least been started to deal with those issues.
These are not easy questions. There are no easy answers, as the task force pointed out. I think we have taken a major step forward, and through this step forward, have given an incentive to first nations who currently have no incentive to resolve these issues of mandate and overlap which did not previously exist. That's not a prescription for paralysis; that's a prescription for moving forward. But it's not going to be easy.
G. Wilson: My last point on this is a question. Maybe I haven't been clear enough for the minister to understand exactly what I'm getting at. My question is: how do you determine the mandate? I would argue that the government opposite has no clear mandate. They only got 40 percent of the vote; 60 percent of the people of British Columbia didn't want them. There you are, making policy and laws on behalf of all of us, and there is not much we can do about it for a couple of years.
F. Garden: It's a democratic system.
G. Wilson: I hear: "It's a democratic system." That is quite correct. I'm glad that the member has finally woken and is now participating in this debate. It's good to see that he is awake. It is a democratic system, and what's more, it's recognized and accepted.
The problem I'm having here.... It isn't just my own view; these are views that have been expressed by aboriginal people, particularly some of the interior bands who are saying: "How do you determine the mandate?" This agreement requires a ratification process.
If you don't have a clear understanding of the legitimate jurisdiction and the authority of that jurisdiction to get the mandate, then how do you enter into an agreement that may have a ratification process -- say, through a referendum -- that tosses that thing out? How do you get a fixed, binding agreement if you have to have ratification after an agreement? This government has legal authority and is empowered -- and some of us would argue that it is unfortunate that it is -- to make agreements on behalf of the people of British Columbia. This says there has to be a mandated negotiation process; then there has to be a ratification
[ Page 6486 ]
process, which assumes that the power given to those mandated for negotiation is not clear enough that they can enter into those binding agreements without ratification.
What I'm arguing here is the question of first nations in the definitions. Surely the minister needs to have a more specific and clearer definition with respect to the legal and political jurisdiction and the authority provided to that jurisdiction as they enter into negotiations. It isn't going to be the land claim, finally, that will be the real nut we have to try and crack in this province; it's going to be jurisdiction over the land. And I said that in second reading. It's the whole process of "self-government" that is going to be an issue. Who is mandated? What is their mandate? What is their legal authority? What is their legal right to enter into these agreements? How is that binding? If they have to go to a ratification process, how can that ratification process alter if a mandate can be given to those who have either a simple majority or no majority? That is a very critically important question.
Hon. A. Petter: I'm not sure I can add a lot to what I've already said. The task force looked at this issue very carefully. It was their recommendation that first nations had to, at least initially, define for themselves their governmental structures. It is also true that we are seeking, through the Treaty Commission Act and the agreement, the advice of the Treaty Commission as to whether or not a first nation is ready to proceed. Part of that consideration is whether or not there is a clear mandate for that first nation to negotiate through certain designated officials or leaders on behalf of the citizens of that first nation. I'm not sure how else you do it.
I think the point about ratification simply proves that first nations have a very strong incentive to ensure that the structure they develop to demonstrate that they have a mandate is an effective structure, because it's going to be a structure that at the end of the process will survive a ratification vote, just as we must be assured that the mandate we as a government have is one that can survive debate and scrutiny in this House and enact legislation necessary to implement treaties. So I think that the two are parallel.
G. Wilson: The minister surely has to recognize that if the last budget had been put to a referendum vote, not only would the government of British Columbia have been tossed out on its ear, but the minister would have gone with it.
So let's be clear. You've got 40 or 41 percent of the vote, but you've got 50 seats -- 51 if you include the seat of the Speaker, which obviously is neutral. So it's 50 seats that you've got here. That's how you get legislation through the House. It's not because you've got the mandate of the majority of the people; it's because you've got the majority of seats in this Legislature. After the next election you won't have that; you'll be on this side, and we'll be on that side, and then you'll see a different change. However, I do digress.
Let me come back to this question. Under the question of this summit, it says it's the body established to represent the nations -- and I think the member from Langara, who is a minister, said that it's those who agree. Right? It says those who "agree to participate." As the minister correctly pointed out, the agreement can be revoked -- some are in, some are out -- and it can change. This is going to be very difficult if -- as we look at section 3, when we get to it; and I know there are other members who want to debate it -- there's going to be some fluctuation.
[3:45]
Does the minister envisage that the summit membership is going to be regarded as a particular snapshot in time? Are you going to say that this is the summit; these are the agreements; these are now binding agreements; now we're going to move forward; if you're in you're in, if you're out you're out? If it isn't going to be that way, then presumably one's membership in the summit can be a bargaining chip in what's going to become a second set of negotiations as to who gets in and who gets out. I would argue that it's something that might be quite painful if we have to go through it.
Hon. A Petter: No, I don't envisage this freeze-in-time situation. This is a voluntary process that first nations can avail themselves of. The summit is identified in the act and in the agreement as being comprised of those first nations that choose to avail themselves of it. It is wholly voluntary. Those who do not wish to, at this time or at some future time, need not do so.
G. Wilson: Could I have the minister, then, give me a direct answer to the question: if a first nation decides not to be a participant in the summit, but has all of its negotiation requirements in order, and it is essentially, in the terms of this agreement, ready.... Let me use one. I know it's controversial in the eyes of some aboriginal people, but let's use the Sechelts. They are ready to negotiate. They are ready to have that concluded. In fact, they've been ready for a long time, and the government hasn't done anything to move those negotiations forward. There's absolutely nothing preventing the conclusion of that, save the will of the federal and provincial governments to make it so.
If they choose to not be part of the summit, what are their chances of getting that resolved? Or is this minister going to stand in the House when I question him in question period, which is one of the things that the minister said earlier in the debate was going to be a useful vehicle for discussion on this process -- which I really take exception to, having sat through a lot of question periods.... But nevertheless, what are their chances of getting an early resolution to what is clearly a settlement that could be obtained within weeks or months but no longer, if they choose not to go this route? Surely the minister is saying that this is going to be the approved process, and that the whole notion of having a roster or list -- which is offensive to a number of aboriginal bands -- is going to come into play if in fact you're down the list somewhere, and you have to wait for one or two or four or five before you get moved to the top. I'd like the minister to specifically answer that and, if possible, talk about the Sechelts, because it's
[ Page 6487 ]
one that -- as I'm well aware, he's well aware and I think all of British Columbia is well aware -- is ready for a settlement that will serve the interests of those particular aboriginal people.
Hon. A. Petter: Very briefly, this is a voluntary process. It's not necessarily an exhaustive process, although it may be an exhausting process. Those first nations who choose to avail themselves of it, can. If the Sechelt band wishes, for example, to pursue negotiations through the Treaty Commission, they can do so without having to affiliate themselves formally with the summit group. They can come forward to the Treaty Commission and avail themselves of this process. If this process does not suit their needs, then there may be opportunities to look at other avenues that do so. I think that answers the member's questions.
G. Wilson: You say that there may be other opportunities. At whose discretion is that going to be? I'm not being critical in my commentary here; I'm asking. If this is the approved process, is the minister going to be reluctant or resistant to those groups out there? The minister is as well aware of those groups as I am because he's met with them; I know because they've told me about their meetings in a rather interesting discourse, actually. Is the minister saying that there is another avenue for resolution of the land question outside of this that will be accepted, approved and used by this government and the federal government?
Hon. A. Petter: There already is a process. The Nisga'a claim, for example, which is being negotiated, is ongoing and won't be affected by this process. The commission may choose to report on the progress of that negotiation, but it isn't subject to it. In the case of the Sechelt I can't give a definitive answer, but I would point out to the member that there are some arguments the Sechelt have put forward to say that they might wish to be considered outside of this process. In our most recent discussions they indicated to me that they weren't seeking a treaty, and this is a treaty process. There have already been negotiations undertaken -- tripartite negotiations -- on the self-government aspects of a Sechelt agreement. In addition, there may well have been some indications by the federal government of trying to move on to land issues with the Sechelt. It is my understanding that the federal government has indicated that if cost-sharing negotiations are resolved between the federal and provincial governments, they might be prepared to look at a negotiating process with the Sechelt. So I'm not ruling it out at all. But I also don't want to rule out the possibility the Sechelt may well look to this process as a very useful one that can serve their interests. It would be my hope that they would do so, but there are reasons why they might not and arguments as to why a different process might be appropriate.
K. Jones: I'd like to follow through on the fine work done by our member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast. I also have similar concerns about those words that are making up the definition of first nations. It's very critical to the whole process, because what you set in this will also be the basis for the agreements and the treaties; the same definitions will carry through. I think it's very important that we be careful as to what we have put down here and that all of the people that are represented by our aboriginal peoples will be fairly and equitably included in the process. It's important that those people with status who don't wish to go through this process are also going to get their fair share of the final settlement, that they're not going to be left with the tail end after everything else is taken by those who are more advanced in this particular process. It's important that those people who are in a non-status category are represented, and that those people who are M�tis also have their claims and interests looked after in this process. Could you clarify for us, hon. minister, how all of these people are going to be given a fair and equitable representation in this process the way it now stands? You have said basically that those who choose to can participate and those who choose not to can wait. I believe those were your previous words to our member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast.
Hon. A. Petter: I can't possibly, in the time available, go through the exhaustive analysis that the task force went through. I recommend to members who are interested in these issues that they read the excellent report done by the task force which was commissioned by the former minister who now sits in this House as Leader of the Third Party. Their discussions were well informed by representatives such as Allan Williams, the former Attorney General of this province.
It won't give you all the nuances of the task force, but the short answer is that the reason for setting up an independent commission such as the one being contemplated by this legislation, under a chair who will enjoy the confidence of both aboriginal and non-aboriginal British Columbians, is precisely to provide the confidence the member seeks. That's why this commission, and not this government, the federal government or the first nations, has been given the mandate to advise government on this process in accordance with the criteria set down in this legislation. Because these are difficult questions, because there are no easy answers and because there will be problems along the way, the conclusion of the task force was that we needed an independent commission of highly credible individuals to oversee this process and advise government on how best to prioritize negotiations, dispense negotiating funds, assess the readiness of first nations, and assist in the resolution of disputes that will get first nations to the negotiating table. That's what this legislation does.
K. Jones: Does the minister feel confident, then, that the wording "mandated" really defines the participatory role that all people will have in making sure that they are given an equal opportunity to be heard and to have a fair apportionment in any ultimate settlement of this process, even those who may not have the funds for expensive legal advice or who for some individual reasons choose not to go through this process? The Sechelt have indicated that they are ready
[ Page 6488 ]
to move. There are others who are ready to move and don't need to go through this process. I don't see that you have actually clarified for us how these people are going to be properly represented in the process, through this definition.
Hon. A. Petter: For those first nations who choose to avail themselves of this process, the commission has been charged with the responsibility to advise whether they are ready to proceed, and that includes whether they are mandated. If they choose to avail themselves of that process, they are choosing to avail themselves of the commission. That's what this process is designed to achieve: it is to have an independent commission advise governments.
Other first nations may choose not to avail themselves of this process. I would hope that over time they would reconsider. There may be some who have reasons that distinguish themselves from those first nations who might wish to avail themselves of this process. For example, if one is seeking to negotiate an agreement that is not a treaty, one might argue that this isn't the process, given that it is to negotiate treaties.
But by and large, we are taking a first step. That step is the creation of a process. My belief is this process will serve the interests of the vast majority of first nations in the province. Time will tell whether that assessment is right. If it isn't right, we may have to contemplate other processes.
K. Jones: Could the minister give us a clear definition of what "mandated" means? "Mandated" isn't defined in this interpretation. Could you tell us what you meant by "mandated" when you brought this forward?
Hon. A. Petter: That is precisely the advice that the Treaty Commission will be providing to us.
K. Jones: I don't think we really got an answer. The minister said that's precisely what the Treaty Commission is going to bring forward. Are you saying they are going to bring forward definitions of the terms that are not defined in the act? Shouldn't the definitions be clarified first, so that the Treaty Commission knows what it's doing?
Hon. A. Petter: I can give the same answer, or I can give a tautology to the member. The tautology is: "mandated" means that you have a mandate. Now whether or not you have a mandate is a question of judgment that the Treaty Commission is going to advise us on.
K. Jones: Could the minister give us some examples of what this type of mandating would entail, so that we who are trying to make a judgment on this have a better understanding of what this will be? Is it going to be a nodding of heads of three or four people who get together? Is it in an actual vote by hands, a secret ballot, or in what form? There are quite a large number of choices that I can think of. Is there going to be some clarification of this?
Hon. A. Petter: Yes, the commission will be looking for evidence that the first nation has a mandate.
[4:00]
K. Jones: I'm quite clear in my mind that that's exactly what they're going to be looking for, but what method will they use to know whether a mandate has been received?
Hon. A. Petter: That is up to the excellent judgment of this independent commission.
K. Jones: I'm afraid that puts a great onus on a body that is there at the pleasure of this government yet doesn't know the process by which it will be expected to make its decisions. That seems a very good example of how to leave things in a confused mess very shortly. How will you be able to actually measure whether you've achieved the mandating or the success of the commission if you don't know what it's supposed to accomplish?
Hon. A. Petter: We'll be looking to the advice of the commission as to whether or not a particular first nation has achieved the mandate required in order to judge them ready to proceed to negotiate under this agreement.
K. Jones: It seems we're not getting an answer on this subject because the government hasn't really thought out that part of the definition clearly enough to be able to come forward with an answer that would guide and assist these people who have the onerous job of trying to bring all of this together. Certainly without having a much clearer definition of "mandated" and "traditional territory" and "constituents" -- when the basic fundamentals are not understood by this government -- it's almost impossible for these people to try to bring forward a treaty.
I think this government has to take the responsibility. If the Treaty Commission is unable to resolve this, it's certainly going to fall back upon this government for failing to provide adequate instruction and clarification of direction. I think an example of this -- and I'd like to ask the minister to tell me whether he agrees with it -- is in the statement that this is an agreement "with the original owners of this great province." That's a quotation from a statement made on May 19 by the member for Alberni -- the government Whip -- speaking on second reading of this Treaty Commission Act. It is found on page 6447 of Hansard, for the assistance of the minister if he wishes to look it up. It certainly brings into question whether the government really is defining it among its back bench or whether it is defining it in the act itself. Is the minister in full agreement with the statement made by the member for Alberni that this is an agreement with the original owners of this great province?
Hon. A. Petter: I'm not sure where the member is going, because he seems to be going off in a number of different and unrelated directions.
[ Page 6489 ]
On the question of mandate, if he would read the task force report he would find out that this is a very tricky issue. Particular first nations are organized differently. Each first nation must be respected in this process of negotiation. For that reason it was decided by the task force, and recommended to government, that first nations organize themselves. On the other hand, government has a responsibility to ensure that it is negotiating with those who speak on behalf of the first nation. For that reason the commission was given the task, based on the recommendation of the task force, to assure itself -- and through itself to governments and the public -- that the particular structure is one in which the first nation or the negotiators for the first nation do indeed have a mandate.
I'm not sure if the member was in the House when I discussed this earlier, but once one gets into the treaty negotiation process, issues about enrolment and representation will inevitably come up and be discussed through that negotiation process. So there will be ample opportunity in the negotiating process to deal with some of those issues substantively.
As for the threshold question, it was precisely because of the difficulty of that issue -- the diversity of first nations, and the respect that must be shown to first nations, as we would expect to be shown to our forms of government -- that the commission as an independent body was agreed to be an appropriate instrument to advise all parties whether all parties, not just first nations, do indeed have a mandate to proceed to negotiations.
[M. Lord in the chair.]
K. Jones: I'd like to just follow up a little bit more in the area that the minister just brought up. Who is going to have the mandate to speak for the principals, and are the principals representing all of the interests that are going to be affected by this? How do the principals, as indicated, look after the interests of third parties: people who have direct property, investment or cultural interest in areas being discussed by these two governments and the first nations people who make up this summit?
Hon. A. Petter: These are issues that might be better addressed later on when we're talking about the actual powers of the commission. Perhaps if we can clear them all up now, we can then zip through all of that.
The task force recommended that it be the role of the provincial and federal governments to ensure that the interests of third parties were represented and respected throughout the negotiation process. As government, we have taken a number of initiatives to ensure that that is happening; I mentioned that in my second reading speech. Under the agreement you will find that the commission has been given the criteria for determining, as part of readiness, whether -- in the case of Canada and British Columbia respectively -- they have established mechanisms for consultation with non-aboriginal interests. In determining the readiness of the province and Canada to proceed, the commission will have to assure itself -- and through itself, the public -- that Canada and British Columbia have in fact undertaken the necessary steps to represent those interests, as was recommended by the task force.
K. Jones: I'd just like to go back to the question I posed with regard to a statement made by the member for Alberni. The minister did not give us an answer to the question of whether he agreed with the statement that this was an agreement with the original owners of this great province.
Hon. A. Petter: This agreement is with the First Nations Summit.
K. Jones: I take it from that statement that the minister is saying he does not agree with the statement made by the government Whip, the member for Alberni.
Hon. A. Petter: No, that is not what I said. What I said was: if you ask who this agreement is with, it is with a particular organization, the First Nations Summit, which is charged with the responsibility of representing first nations that wish to associate themselves with this process.
K. Jones: It seems obvious that the minister doesn't wish to touch the question with regard to the statement made by the member for Alberni. I think it must be considered that it really puts the government in a very difficult position to have to have these negotiations going ahead on the basis that they've already committed to: that the ownership of the title of the province is in the hands of the people who are listed here as first nations.
Hon. A. Petter: I would love to engage in a philosophical debate with the member on the question of title and ownership, but it's simply not germane to the issue at hand.
V. Anderson: To follow up on just a few things that arise from what the minister has said, I was concerned earlier in the discussion when he referred to other people being able to be part of this. He said that at the end of the day, he hoped they might be a part of this. Later on that was qualified, and I now understand it to mean that at the beginning of the day, there are other processes available as well. I want to say that that's what I heard, and I trust that's what the minister meant.
I understood that the treaty agreement, the original agreement that we're talking about, was made by way of an order-in-council, I presume on behalf of the provincial government. When we are implying that changes could be made in the agreement, we're not implying that changes can be made by the negotiating committee per se; we're implying that those agreements have to come back to be ratified by an order-in-council of the government -- federal, provincial and summit. Perhaps we could get a clarification on that. The five members of the commission don't change the
[ Page 6490 ]
agreement; the agreement can only be changed by those who made the original agreement. Is that right?
Hon. A. Petter: On the first point, it's true that this process does allow the Nisga'a negotiations, which are already underway, to continue, and they don't have to go through this process. There may be others who can make a claim, for one reason or another, that they are also in process and ought to continue in some form of negotiation. There are also many negotiations that have gone on and will go on around the province on a variety of issues, which are not treaty issues, that might take place and will take place in any event. So the member is correct.
I also wish to reiterate that we view this process as being extremely useful and valuable. While it is voluntary and not exhaustive, as I said earlier, I believe that it can meet the needs of the vast majority of first nations. I would hope that first nations will look upon it in that light and avail themselves of it.
With respect to the latter point, you're absolutely correct. It is an agreement among three principals -- the federal and provincial governments and the First Nations Summit -- and it can only be changed by those principals, using the instruments they initially used to promulgate the agreement. In the case of the province, that would be a signature, subject to ratification by an order-in-council.
V. Anderson: Thank you for those explanations and clarifications. A few other things came up from the comments. At one point the minister implied that this doesn't bind the government in any way. In a sense we are bound, whether legally, morally or by expectations. There is a binding that does go forward, and it's the expectations which often bind us even more in the long run than either the legal or the moral ones. We have to recognize that what we say and how we say it are very important.
At the same time, he acknowledges that the purpose of the Treaty Commission is to facilitate negotiations. I think one of the concerns that has been raised is that any group that has the power to facilitate also has the power to get in the way and do strictly the opposite. And if the opposite is happening, then the concern it raises is: how do you get the Treaty Commission back on track if that should happen? I think that's part of the concern here. Who has the mandate to review the work of the Treaty Commission? Who has the power to say to the Treaty Commission, "You're not functioning as you should, even though you were all specialists in the beginning," so that there is some review process in place? And who has the mandate to do that in undertaking the government's concerns and our concerns through the government?
Hon. A. Petter: I take the member's point about facilitation and the fact that certainly this act does represent a moral obligation or the fulfilment of a moral obligation to first nations to put a process in place to commence the negotiation of treaties and to resolve longstanding issues.
I also take the point that processes put in place to facilitate can sometimes hinder. For that reason, if the member refers to the agreement, he'll find in section 12.0 a review provision that the principals shall review the effectiveness of the commission at least once every three years following its establishment, and that coincides with the term of the chair of the commission. So there is provision built within this for review, and the principals who created this commission could agree, upon that review, to modify it in ways that would assist it in operating better.
[4:15]
V. Anderson: I notice there the phrase, "at least once in every three years," so that they have, theoretically at least, the opportunity to review it in between if necessary.
The point has also been raised in the discussion that the legislation is to finally enact treaties. Two questions around that. Perhaps there should have been or could have been a definition of what a treaty is and what it is meant to encompass and to contain, because in the minister's comments he referred to items of concern that are outside of treaties. He also implied that there are certain items that are within treaties and certain items that are outside of treaties. But that definition is not within the act itself, although it seems to be important. What areas of concern are eligible to be considered within the definition of treaties? That would be helpful in clarifying exactly what we're talking about in the discussion.
Hon. A. Petter: I think there is some disagreement as to what is or ought to be included within treaties. That is another matter that will ultimately have to be resolved through the negotiation process. I would point out that under the terms of the agreement the commission can, in this process, accommodate related agreements and other agreements that may fall strictly outside the definition. So there is flexibility there. But the issue of whether self-government agreements should be incorporated within treaties or outside of treaties is a controversial one and may be the subject of negotiations. So I can't provide you with a categorical definition of treaties at this stage, other than to say that the function of a treaty will be to resolve these longstanding issues of rights in a way that promotes certainty, to respect rights that currently are not addressed in any comprehensive way and to lead to a resolution of these longstanding issues.
V. Anderson: Finally on this section, as far as I'm concerned, if I understand rightly, the process of the commission is to enable the different parties to come together. Then, with all the principals in agreement, they would come to a definition in this particular treaty that they're working on. When that agreement is reached by all the principals -- federal, provincial and summit representatives -- then that treaty agreement will come back to the legislatures.... You mentioned this earlier, and I wanted clarification. When a treaty is agreed upon, does it come back to the summit? In that case, it would not be the summit; the group itself, with
[ Page 6491 ]
the federal and provincial governments, would be making the decision. So in that case, the decision would be made by the treaty group, with the federal and provincial governments agreeing through their respective legislatures.
Hon. A. Petter: Yes, that is correct.
G. Wilson: I just have a couple of quick clarification questions. Depending on the minister's answer, they may be quick.
I want to come back to this mandate, because it is really important. To whom can people who feel disenfranchised appeal directly to have their interests and their concerns heard if there is disagreement among members of an aboriginal group as to provision of an adequate mandate, but the treaty commission says that it is satisfied that the group negotiating is mandated?
Hon. A. Petter: I would assume they would have an appeal process of whatever kind their own governmental structure afforded. But beyond that, issues on the relationship of the negotiations to those people will be the subject of negotiations as well. Like any citizens, they may wish to make those concerns public. But, as I say, the federal government and the province have an interest in ensuring that those who might feel disenfranchised, do not, so we can be assured that once treaties are reached, there is certainty and stability and no citizens are left who might have any claim that their rights were not embraced within the terms of the treaty.
G. Wilson: The minister answered that as I anticipated he would. First of all, I think it's a little bit specious to suggest that if a group has taken power or authority and is negotiating on behalf of a substantial minority, or even a majority...it's unlikely that those who control the power base are going to hear an appeal -- in an arguably fair manner -- from people to whom they've just denied power. I think the minister would recognize that going through a somewhat corrupted system is not the way to go.
Insofar as this commission is there to simply facilitate.... That's what it says, and I would imagine we're going to pass the "Purpose" one with only an hour and a half of debate. The government of British Columbia, the minister responsible and the elected members of this assembly presumably still have powers and authority over any action that this commission may take.
My question -- a crucially important one -- to the minister is this: if the commission has argued that it's satisfied a group is empowered and mandated to enter into negotiation, but the minister or the government disagrees, can the minister then withhold the funding made available to the commission for negotiation? Can it refuse to enter into negotiation if the commission says that it should? To what authority... Does the government have authority, given that this is not an agent of any of the principals, to step out of that particular process and say: "In this instance, we will not participate"? Or is it bound by the recommendations that the commission has put forward?
Hon. A. Petter: Let me make a very quick general point, and then I'll try to address the more specific concerns. I don't think that we would stand in this Legislature for an independent commission passing judgment over whether a duly elected provincial government was mandated to represent the interests of the citizens of British Columbia. Similarly, there must be sensitivity shown to first nations and their ability to make these decisions for themselves. Having said that, the commission has been given this role of determining whether a mandate exists. It must be exercised sensitively with respect to all three parties, not just the first nations. Also, I would urge that we be sensitive in our discussion about that. I think it's a tremendous advancement over the current situation in which these judgments are made by the federal government alone.
With respect to the more specific questions about funding and negotiation, the commission has been given the authority to dispense negotiating funds according to its best judgment, based on these criteria. The decision as to whether a government chooses to negotiate is ultimately left with the government. If the government does not follow the advice of the commission, that may still be influential upon it, in the same way a censure from the ombudsman might be influential upon it; but the government is not bound by that advice.
G. Wilson: My final comment on this section goes back to the first statement that the minister made. That was a mouthful from this minister, and I hope people will review Hansard and read it with great care. I recognize there is an absolute need for sensitivity on this question -- and there is, by all members, without doubt. The minister is saying that this commission would no more stand and pass judgment on a duly elected government of British Columbia, which its authority, its jurisdiction and its right to govern established under the Constitution Act of Canada.... Therefore, by implication, I am hearing that this commission should not question a duly elected government of a "first nation," if indeed it is deemed to be mandated by its "constituents" -- and that's in this act. If that is what the minister intended -- and I am trying to be sensitive -- that is in fact an acknowledgment that in this process we are already within jurisdictional questions and negotiating government to government. That brings us back to an agreement that was not ratified in the Constitution Act of Canada last fall, with respect to self-government propositions which have not been negotiated and are not yet a formal part of any constitutional agreement with the federal or provincial governments or the peoples of the first nations.
The minister might want to review what he said -- or clarify what he said -- because it is clear to me that there are aboriginal people in this province who have sincere concerns about what is taking place here with respect to their long-term interests. This government is mandated as much to look after their interests as it is to look after the interests of others -- aboriginal and
[ Page 6492 ]
non-aboriginal alike. I would hope -- and it comes back to what I asked earlier on -- that this minister is not going to abrogate responsibility in this process and will make sure that fairness and justice prevail with respect to recommendations that may come out as this commission tries to facilitate this process.
It is true that we need to be sensitive, but we also have to recognize that there is going to be a very lengthy and difficult discussion about jurisdiction -- and I can't emphasize it enough. For the record, I hope it is clear now that it is the jurisdictional questions on authority to pass laws and to have rights over land that are going to be the thorniest issues in negotiation. It is already seen with respect to the implementation of an aboriginal fisheries strategy, which is done by federal and provincial governments. So I would come back to that business of mandate, because that is a very important issue under the definition of first nations and the negotiation process.
Hon. A. Petter: Just to correct the record, the aboriginal fisheries strategy was not negotiated by the provincial government, but by the federal government and first nations.
On the earlier question, I would -- and no doubt will have an opportunity to do so during estimates debate -- love to engage in a philosophical discussion with the member to clarify all these points. I simply go back to the point that it's necessary to show sensitivity and respect. In order to do that, I think it's helpful to put oneself in other people's shoes.
I agree with the member that the government has a responsibility to all citizens. However, I also agree with the task force's recommendation No. 7 -- made by some very eminent individuals, such as a former Attorney General of this province, Allan Williams -- which says: "The organization of first nations for the negotiations is a decision to be made by each first nation." That respect must be shown. I don't think that's the ringing declaration the member would have, but it's a sign of respect. First nations are governmental structures. They must be respected as such, and we must balance that respect against a concern to ensure that those who come to the negotiating table can represent the interests of the citizens of that first nation. It's that very delicate balance that the Treaty Commission will advise us on in judging the readiness of first nations in accordance with the question of whether or not the nation indeed does have a mandate to negotiate.
Section 1 approved.
On section 2.
V. Anderson: I just want to seek one clarification. It probably goes without saying: "The purpose of this act is to establish the British Columbia Treaty Commission, as undertaken in the agreement." So in effect we're saying that whatever is in the agreement is the purpose of this act; over and above just establishing the commission, that's the purpose of the act. But we're also saying -- or are we? -- that everything in the agreement is to be established as a result of this as well. There's a double meaning that could be taken from the way that's said, and I'm trying to clarify which meaning is really meant.
Hon. A. Petter: The language in the clause is there to suggest the relationship between the agreement and the legislation, but it does not give the agreement the status of law. The legislation has the status of law; the legislation is there to give effect to the agreement. The agreement does not, however, by virtue of that, become an extension of the legislation.
[4:30]
Section 2 approved.
On section 3.
J. Weisgerber: First of all, I am pleased to join in the committee debate on Bill 22.
I want to start by saying that I have a great deal of respect and admiration for, and a great deal of confidence in, the members of the task force who developed the recommendations that ultimately led to the agreement which we are now attempting to put into law or to endorse on behalf of the province. I think it is also fair to recognize that these people -- including, as the minister has indicated, a former Attorney General -- spent a lot of time looking at the definitions and determining the kinds of things that we're talking about today, trying to seek clarification and to make sure that the wording was as appropriate as it could be. So I've not joined in the debate around the definitions, because I felt that, given the confidence I have in the people who developed them, probably every question I could think of would have been considered in a great deal more detail than this particular forum allows us to do.
Section 3 sets out, among other things, the membership of the commission. I'm interested in the provincial government's -- the NDP government's, the minister's government's -- endorsement of the notion that the membership of the committee should be one from the province, one from the federal government and two representing the summit. I'm sure the minister, his government and his cabinet must have had a great deal of trouble justifying it, as I did when I looked at that recommendation. It must have been difficult to say that if we are going to sit down, as the minister has said -- and I want to make sure these are the minister's words -- on a nation-to-nation basis.... Surely each would come equally represented. I'm wondering how the minister was able to rationalize the decision to accept, on behalf of the government and the people of British Columbia, that particular recommendation of the task force.
Hon. A. Petter: I very much appreciate the introductory comments of the member, because I share the same confidence that he does in the task force. I also agree that the question of composition of the commission is a tricky one. From a first nations perspective, there is a careful balance that has to be struck. Many first nations would say the negotiation is between first nations and non-aboriginal governments.
[ Page 6493 ]
They see it as a binary process in which the provincial and federal governments both happen to be involved.
I would say that the choice of the chair was obviously crucial in this composition. The notion that the chair must be there to represent and have the confidence of all British Columbians is one element. But the most crucial element that helped resolve my mind and the government's mind on this arises later in the bill in section 14, particularly 14(2), which we can discuss. That provides that the decisions of the commission must be by agreement of at least one commissioner appointed by each of the three principals. That consensus-based approach effectively assures the province that no decision will be made unless the province's views are listened to and respected. It makes the question of actual numbers less important in ensuring that the provincial view and voice are heard at the table. The first nations agreed that unless the provincial and federal representatives both agreed, decisions could not be taken. That this commission cannot act without taking full account of those interests reassured me in large measure and should reassure the Legislature. Therefore the question of two versus one or two versus two, depending on how you look at it, became less of an issue.
J. Weisgerber: If the minister, as he indicates, set out or wanted to downplay this notion that it's aboriginal people against the governments, which I don't happen to adhere to.... Once you get into negotiations, as the minister will have found in the Nisga'a negotiations, I think there is at least as much negotiation required between the two senior levels of government as there is between the governments and the aboriginal people. But it would seem to me that the minister's argument is almost self-defeating. In fact, the acceptance of the 2-1-1 formula would seem to confirm that the minister has been able to rationalize that there is a kind of us-and-them mentality going into this. I would have thought that the minister and his government would have been a bit tougher on this issue of representation, particularly to make crystal clear that there were three individual parties -- the two senior levels of government and the aboriginal governments -- and there was no need for weighting. If, as the minister says, the numbers don't count, then it would seem more difficult to accept an illogical combination of numbers than the logical combination of one, one and one and an independent chair who would oversee the group.
Hon. A. Petter: I'm not sure that it's a question of logic; it's a question of balancing various concerns. As the member pointed out in starting his remarks, the task force recommended this composition. Like the member opposite, I take as my starting point that the task force's views on these difficult issues -- and certainly this was one of the most difficult -- should be respected.
I can see why the task force came to this view. One wouldn't want a commission much larger than five for reasons of effectiveness and efficiency. A commission of five members that didn't have at least two aboriginal representatives could send very negative signals as well, particularly given the diversity of aboriginal populations and first nations in this province. What I think we've succeeded in doing here is to provide a balance. There is adequate aboriginal representation to provide comfort to those who choose to avail themselves of this process and to show that the commission will be sensitive to the diversity of aboriginal concerns. At the same time, the views of the provincial, federal and first nations representatives must each be respected before agreements can be taken -- because of the procedure provided for in section 14(2) -- to ensure that the voices of the three principal representatives are one.
J. Weisgerber: The minister's response leads me into the next series of questions that I have around this process. It seems to me that the Treaty Commission represents an agreement between the federal government, the province of B.C. and an organization which represents a large bloc, but certainly not all, of the aboriginal nations and bands in the province. I think it's fair to recognize that there are other political organizations, essentially though not exclusively the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, that are not a part of this process. If the intent was some day to have all B.C. bands a part of this process, it would have been logical, in my mind, to say we're going to have a seat for the federal government, a seat for the province, a seat for the summit and a seat for the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs or some other political organization that might represent the other bands. Perhaps we should have left the second aboriginal seat vacant until such time as we are able to bring the other member bands into this process. It seems to me that if it's not the long-term intent to see all or the vast majority of bands in this process, then the minister must be willing to undertake, consider or endorse a parallel process, another treaty commission that's made up of the federal government, the province and the group of people who are not now represented by the summit. When you start to talk about questions of overlap, it would seem to be very complex. So I hope the minister and his government are not encouraging some parallel process to deal with the people who aren't in. Perhaps at this point I'll hear the minister's thoughts.
Hon. A. Petter: I know the Leader of the Third Party is sensitive to this because he faced a similar situation when he appointed the task force. It was, I think, a 2-2-3 composition, the three being for aboriginal organizations. When a union membership was not found, you appointed a third person who was more identified with the summit. So it is a dilemma. There is an organization, at the provincial organizational level, that clearly may not feel comfortable with this process, at least at this stage. Having said that, I think it's important to note that there may be individual members of the union who may come to feel comfortable with this process, and indeed some have already indicated so.
The summit is an organization that has essentially defined itself in terms of this process. It's the
[ Page 6494 ]
organization that is there to represent those first nations who choose to associate themselves with this process. The union is an organization that has many purposes. As part of those purposes it has chosen, as an organization, to disassociate itself from this process. But it's my tremendous hope that, over time, if not the union at the provincial level, then perhaps individual union bands may come to look upon this process in a different light. If that doesn't happen, then I suppose we'll have to look at alternatives. At this stage, I think this process is the one that has recommended itself to governments. We have an organization which is defined specifically in terms of this process and therefore can well represent those individual first nations that choose to avail themselves of it. I'm not sure we're going to solve today, as we didn't solve in the establishment of the task force, the problem of other organizations. I think we have to be sensitive to those organizations and their concerns and consider their positions as time evolves.
J. Weisgerber: I won't continue to push the issue. Having already accepted the notion of the 2-1-1 representation, I would agree that there doesn't seem to be a ready resolution. I'll say again that at some point in the future, when accommodations of groups or the union appear to be possible, I expect that whoever is in the process will wish then that there was the simple expediency of adding a seat to accommodate the new group. The situation as it exists is going to cause you either to exchange or replace one of the seats in order to accommodate the new group or to expand the commission to accommodate the new group. As the minister just indicated, he didn't think that was very appropriate.
I'll finish off, because I don't want to go round and round on this. I don't think we're going to go anywhere. It's an issue that perhaps should have been considered a bit more carefully at the time the task force report was tabled. Both senior levels of government might have taken a firmer position on this issue, because it's the one of two or three small items -- I would classify this as a relatively small item in the overall structure -- that appears to be flawed. I think it was a mistake.
If the minister wants to respond, fine. If not, I'll move on or listen to what other concerns there might be.
[4:45]
G. Wilson: Just to pick up from the Leader of the Third Party, I draw the minister's attention to appendix 1 of the Report of the British Columbia Claims Task Force. The terms of reference looked at in appendix 1 were two persons nominated by the B.C. government, two by Canada, two by the first nations and one by the union. Some duties were spelled out. Notwithstanding the recommendation that exists on page 41.... I'm giving the minister these page numbers just to let him know that I've read the report. I seem to recall that there was an appendix, and I wanted to have it come in so that I could refer back to it.
It seems to me that more equal membership is something that's desirable from a number of points of view, not just from the point of view of the provincial government. It strikes me that in the interests of aboriginal people it would be desirable to have a divergence of opinion expressed by a highly divergent group of people. Often there's a real danger that we non-aboriginal people will take a broad brush and try to stroke a commonality among peoples without recognizing that there's a wide divergence of interests, directions and ambitions among aboriginal people, as there is among non-aboriginal people. Therefore we have to try to facilitate wherever possible. Could the minister tell us what happened to move us away from the task force concept of two, two, two and one? When the recommendations for four came down -- these are the recommendations that essentially are being acted on now -- what other process does the minister refer to when he talks about the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs being a participant as an agency quite different from that of the other first nations defined in the summit?
Hon. A. Petter: Part of that question, at least, could probably be better addressed to the Leader of the Third Party.
I will just review the history as I understand it -- and I will stand corrected. While the intention was -- and the terms of reference indicate that to a point -- that a member would be nominated by the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, such a nomination was not forthcoming. Subsequently, the government decided to appoint an individual who was not associated with the B.C. Union of Indian Chiefs to fill that third spot. I guess the answer is that one cannot compel first nations to participate in a process they do not choose to participate in. Indeed, one of the crucial principles underlying the task force report, as I read it, is that this must be a voluntary process. I think it was for that reason and because of that very well thought out recommendation that the government decided it would not be appropriate, by way of the reservation of a seat or another indication, to try to compel a group that does not wish to associate itself with this process. However, as I say, it's my hope that over time, either as a group or if not as a group perhaps through the individual first nations that associate with the union, this process will recommend itself.
I would point out that there are many organizations in the province representing a variety of different first nations for different purposes and on different issues. What works well about the summit is that it is specifically geared to this process. If the membership of the summit expands, no doubt there will be a demand within the membership to perhaps shift representation, or whatever, to better reflect that membership.
G. Wilson: The minister doesn't provide us with any information with respect to the appendix, which in fact has the signature of the Leader of the Third Party when he was Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. It talks about the very process that he advocates now, and one I would have thought this government might have seen themselves better positioned to have: that is, essentially, two persons nominated by the government of British Columbia, two by the government of Canada, two by
[ Page 6495 ]
the First Nations Congress and one by the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs. If that model was being discussed in the initial stages, why is it now felt that the current process of two, one and one and a chair is going to better serve those people who are represented by the province of British Columbia in the negotiation process or in the facilitation of that process?
Hon. A. Petter: I can't give you the detailed account, but the member sitting three doors down from you can. I can tell you what happened generally. The union was not keen to participate in this process, and what happened was that a new organizational structure known as the summit came forward precisely to organize itself for first nations that wished to participate in this process, to be an umbrella organization, voluntary for those who wish to associate. That was seen as a better approach to this issue, on the part of first nations, than trying to figure out which of the existing organizations out there could or could not fit themselves in. The summit becomes an organization that is directly related to this process and is voluntary to those first nations that wish to associate themselves. If you want to know more about why the change was made, look down the hall to the Leader of the Third Party, and I'm sure he can fill you in on it.
G. Wilson: Except that it isn't the Leader of the Third Party who is advancing this bill; it's the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, and it's the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs to whom I look for answers to these questions.
That aside, I'll just go on to the question of membership, and then we'll move off that. With respect to the report of the Claims Task Force -- which the minister has said he has subscribed to, and he's trying to implement the recommendations in this act -- outside of those listed in the various appendices, what was the total number of aboriginal bands that participated in this task force? What was considered to be adequate with respect to their representation, or the facilitation of that representation, on the commission? Was it ever discussed that in fact there may be competing interests, and therefore there may need to be more than two seats and possibly a neutral third or fourth seat? If you look outside those that are listed here.... I think there are roughly eight bands out of 197 that gave written submissions. Presumably there's been a much wider canvassing. I wonder if the minister could tell us what that is.
Hon. A. Petter: There was a ratification of the task force report by the summit and those first nations associated with the summit at the time of that ratification. I can't give you the precise numbers. My impression is that it represents the preponderance of first nations in the province. I remind you that the summit is there to represent those first nations who wish to participate in this process; it's entirely voluntary if they do so.
G. Wilson: Fair enough. If they're satisfied, we're satisfied, and we move on, I presume.
Given that it's acknowledged that the chair.... I'd just like to ask the minister, because I tried to find later in this act where it's actually spelled out what the duties are. I notice that under section 10 the chief executive officer, who I gather from this agreement is one and the same as the chair -- and if it's not then the minister could tell us now that it's not -- is presumably neutral. Is that correct?
Hon. A. Petter: Yes, they are one and the same. The chair is neutral in the sense that the chair has been appointed, based upon the agreement of the three parties, and is there to perform a neutral role. I would also point out that the commission itself is independent of government, although certain of the commissioners are appointed by each of the respective parties and therefore have some claim to independence, at least, and hopefully neutrality as well.
G. Wilson: With respect to the four commissioners could the minister tell us.... Once again, this bill is not specific with respect to how this commission is going to undertake to ratify its decisions. One assumes that if one can get consensus that that's the optimum. When consensus does not occur.... I certainly haven't found out where the voting weights or powers of these members are, on what items they may or may not vote and whether or not there can be a resolution that's passed. I know there's some material here on quorum. Can the minister enlighten us with respect to the voting weights and powers?
Hon. A. Petter: Yes, we can certainly address that issue in the context of section 14, which does specify the ways in which decisions of the commission are reached. It's a section I referred to earlier in reference to questions from the Leader of the Third Party.
G. Wilson: All right. We'll deal with it under section 14(2), because that doesn't tell me anything in terms of the voting weights and powers. That's what I'm talking about. We're talking about a commission that has a membership of 2-1-1 voting members and a neutral chair that is going to be funded by the province of British Columbia and the federal government as they see fit, that is going to be provided necessary monies to facilitate negotiation, and that is going to have powers to be able to provide that money.
I'm asking what the voting weight is with respect to this commission. It comes back to the point that the Leader of the Third Party was trying to make. Is there an assumption that it's going to be two and two because you've got two aboriginal representatives and two government representatives -- albeit one is estranged from British Columbia by the fact of living in Ottawa, if history serves us as it has in this country? To what extent can this commission make recommendations and essentially make the allocation of moneys where the representative of the province is in disagreement?
Hon. A. Petter: I think that issue can better be addressed under sections 13 and 14, particularly 14(2), which make it very clear that the decisions of the
[ Page 6496 ]
commission must be made by agreement of at least one commissioner appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.
G. Wilson: We'll come back and get at it there, because there are other issues that need to be fleshed out a little bit.
This is strictly for my edification, if the minister can enlighten me. Section 3(2) says, "For all purposes except the application to the commission of the Access to Information Act (Canada) and the Privacy Act (Canada)" -- obviously two federal statutes -- "the commission must be treated as having been established by or under an Act of the Legislature of British Columbia." To what extent can the federal House of Commons amend the companion legislation impacting this act and have it seen as superior legislation that would override the act in this House? Is it possible for that to occur? It says here that it can't happen. I'm not so sure that we lowly little people in the House in British Columbia can have that kind of weight and authority over the House of Commons. I'm asking strictly on a question of jurisdiction.
Hon. A. Petter: We could get into a long theoretical debate, but I think the short practical answer -- and the legal answer, to boot -- is that if the federal government attempted to amend its legislation in a way that altered the powers of the commission, there would cease to be an agreement among the parties, and the commission would cease to function. The whole nature of this commission depends upon the agreement of the three parties to establish the commission, and the commission would cease to exist by virtue of that very unconstructive act.
G. Wilson: There's a certain level of frustration here. That brings me back to the fact that this agreement does have superior status to the two.... If you're saying that if we amend this act it de facto breaks this agreement, therefore this agreement no longer has effect, and if the federal government is to do the same, what kind of security is there for the elected members of this Legislature or of the House of Commons to be able to regulate and legislate a commission that is funded by government? The taxpayers of Canada are funding this, yet I'm hearing that there are limited amounts of jurisdiction available to the House of Commons and to the Legislature of British Columbia under this bill.
Notwithstanding what it says in section 3(2), any amendment would be seen as a breach of this agreement signed by the Prime Minister and the Premier. I'm certain that's what the minister said to me just a few minutes ago. If not, could he clarify?
[5:00]
Hon. A. Petter: The act introduced here is to give effect to a tripartite agreement, that is going to be given effect by a federal act, a provincial act and resolution of first nations summit. If one of the three parties decides, by amending legislation in a legislature, to alter the terms of that legislation, that would effectively alter or undermine not only the agreement but also the whole understanding around the legislation we've been debating today, and therefore would effectively abrogate the agreement. A party could abrogate the agreement; the federal government could if it so chose.
I'm very perplexed by the member's comments about the Legislature, because the question he posed was: what if the federal parliament chose to amend the law? If it chose to amend the law by virtue of parliamentary supremacy, I suppose that would break the agreement, and it would make it impossible for the provincial legislation -- which is designed to work in harmony -- to function, and we wouldn't have a commission.
G. Wilson: This isn't law yet. If we've got a companion piece of legislation which we're putting through this House in advance of legislation going through the House of Commons.... I think I'm right on that. If that companion piece of legislation is drafted in a manner that's similar to or exactly the same as this, and if we amend this, then presumably they're going to have to mirror amendments in order to be consistent with our amendments.
Suppose we pass this so that we can have our ceremony tomorrow -- which is what the minister wants to do -- and then the House of Commons amends their companion legislation. That's my question. The amended legislation in Ottawa it may not tangibly affect the powers of British Columbia, but may affect the role and rights of the commissioner appointed by the federal government in this agreement -- which is not specified here. There are a lot of things, such as how we work out the cost of settling land claims, which have to be worked out in terms of finance between British Columbia and Canada. If we pass this ahead of Ottawa, what happens if Ottawa amends its legislation in a manner that is not consistent with or not acceptable to us?
Hon. A. Petter: This is a dilemma that's inherent whenever you pass a piece of legislation in two legislatures or two pieces of legislation in two legislatures -- legislation that is intended to work together to create a single entity. There is the resolution of the First Nations Summit that is required as well. Obviously, this legislation would not have been introduced if we were not confident that the federal government will be introducing legislation that is not incompatible. But this legislation will only come into effect -- and we can refer to the last section of the bill -- when there has been regulation by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. That in turn will not take place unless we're assured that there is federal legislation in place that will mirror and support this legislation.
G. Wilson: So what the minister is saying is that we're going to push this through this House first; we're going to withhold regulation until we're confident that the summit and the federal government have got something consistent in place. In respect to section 3(1), which is essentially on membership, is the minister confident that this agreement will indeed be
[ Page 6497 ]
mirrored in Ottawa, and has the minister seen the legislation that is proposed for Ottawa?
Hon. A. Petter: Yes, I am confident -- this has been the subject of ongoing negotiation among the three principals -- that the proposed federal legislation has been reviewed extensively with respect to every provision of that legislation that is germane to the operation of the commission. That is why the legislation is before you.
G. Wilson: Perhaps the minister can tell us, because this might shorten the debate substantially, whether or not there's an agreement that this legislation will go through without amendment. If it has been pre-negotiated and pre-agreed to, then it seems to me that it makes this committee stage, putside of explanation, redundant. Excuse me if perhaps it seems a little bit naive of an elected member of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia, but I thought that responsible government and responsible opposition were meant to look at legislation and seek to try and amend it -- not cut deals with the federal government or with any other organization to bring in legislation that is essentially de facto going to be passed without any amendment. So can the minister tell us whether or not there's any agreement that amendments to this legislation will not go forward, or that the federal government will not entertain amendments by opposition members of the mirror legislation that's been so carefully negotiated?
Hon. A. Petter: No, there is no such agreement. There was an agreement introduced -- the legislation in its present form -- and certainly it would not be helpful, from the government's point of view, to engage in amendments that would substantially alter the bill. The member can summon all the outrage he wants, but the fact is that this bill is before the House in order to provide an opportunity for an airing and discussion of all its provisions. We could have gone ahead with an agreement without any legislation, and I'm very happy that we have legislation so that you can have the opportunity to air your various opinions.
G. Wilson: Can the minister tell us how he could have gone ahead without legislation when under the agreement -- which we say we can't break, otherwise the whole agreement is down the drain -- it says section 2.1(b): "The Minister of Aboriginal Affairs shall introduce legislation to the British Columbia legislature to establish the commission as a legal entity to carry out the purposes of this agreement." By the minister's own words, if we do not follow this to the letter, or if we change or bring in any kind of legislation that alters the terms, we are in breach of this agreement. So how could we have proceeded without that, if in fact it's subject to the agreement we're discussing now?
Hon. A. Petter: By not containing that provision in the agreement.
G. Wilson: This agreement that carries the signature of the Prime Minister and the Premier of British Columbia does contain that agreement. That has been signed and agreed to.
V. Anderson: Apart from the concern that we've been discussing about whether amendments can be made or how far we can go with this, perhaps the minister might explain for the record the meaning and implications of subsection 3(2).
Hon. A. Petter: With respect to the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act -- I'm not sure if that's the aspect the member is asking about -- the assessment was made, because of the terms of the federal legislation and because it's in place, that administratively it made more sense for the federal freedom of information and privacy legislation to apply to the commission, in order to ensure that the commission was subject to the provisions of the federal acts. There's a question as to the application of the provincial act, when it comes into place, to federal-provincial bodies. This resolves that access to information and privacy provisions will apply to the commission.
V. Anderson: The wording is a little difficult to follow. You're saying that, by this insertion, both the federal Access to Information Act and Privacy Act will apply to this commission. Under those acts, you could access information from this commission and make it available. Does that mean that when provincial acts come into place, you will also be able to access them as well?
Hon. A. Petter: With respect to commission information, not government information -- because the government is obviously still bound -- a decision had to be made for administrative convenience, so that there wouldn't be a chaotic situation as to which freedom of information and privacy legislation would apply. Because the federal legislation is in place and because it can be applied to federal-provincial bodies of this kind, the decision was made to go with the federal legislation, because it was felt that it would provide greater assurance of access to a body of this kind.
You're absolutely correct. The provincial legislation, if it were applicable, could not, by virtue of this provision, be applied to the commission. It could be applied to the government in respect to its activities in relation to the commission, but not to the commission itself.
V. Anderson: If I understood you right, you said that, through this act, the federal acts can be applied to the commission. Provincial acts would be applied to the government -- the provincial government in particular.
Hon. A. Petter: I think that is correct, but I will just say it to make sure. If people wish to seek access to information from the commission, they would go under the federal act. If people wish to seek access to information or privacy protection with respect to provincial activities that relate to the commission but
[ Page 6498 ]
are of the provincial government, they would go under the provincial act.
Sections 3 and 4 approved.
On section 5.
J. Weisgerber: I'd like to get some rather specific information from the minister on subsection (3)(b). It deals with the allocation of funds to first nations for the specific purpose of negotiations. My question is quite simple: will the minister confirm that the funds to be provided for the purposes of negotiation are to be federal? In other words, will the minister confirm for me now that the province will not contribute to a pool of money for the commission for the purposes of allocation for negotiation?
Hon. A. Petter: That is indeed the position of the provincial government at present; I believe it's the understanding of the federal government as well. The only qualification I would put on that is that it is a subject the federal government has made clear it wishes to pursue in the cost-sharing negotiations. At present, subject only to the outcome of cost-sharing negotiations, it's not the intention of the province to provide funding for the purposes of negotiating. It is our view that that is a federal responsibility.
J. Weisgerber: Just to be crystal clear, then, it is the minister's position, in going forward with this agreement and bringing in this legislation, that none of the funds we're talking about are to be provided by the provincial government. It is the position of this government and of the minister that the province has no responsibility in the area of funding of negotiations.
Hon. A. Petter: It is the case, for example, that we have not budgeted any funds for that purpose, and at present it is our view that that is a federal responsibility and it always has been. That issue may well be raised in the process of cost-sharing negotiations and may form part of a larger set of issues around cost-sharing. But at present, subject only to a cost-sharing agreement that alters this, it is our view that the provision of funds for negotiations with respect to treaty settlements is a responsibility of the federal government.
G. Wilson: I come back to section 5(1): "...the commission is to facilitate, in British Columbia, the negotiation of treaties among one or more first nations...." We have canvassed this to some degree. My question is about the wording "among one or more first nations." I'm trying to get a handle on how many negotiations this commission will facilitate concurrently. Are we talking about one, then two, then three, or about a concurrent set of negotiations?
Hon. A. Petter: That's an issue that the commission is going to have to advise us upon. As part of its readiness criteria, the commission is going to have to look at the question of the resources of governments and the capacity to engage in negotiations simultaneously. Certainly I see the possibility of numerous negotiations going on at the same time. But the province will obviously take the position that it must be done in a way that matches our capacity, both in terms of revenue and talent, to put together the appropriate negotiating teams and to gain the appropriate information necessary for those negotiations. Those are variables that the commission will have to weigh, balance and advise us on. Then we will have to decide to take the direction from the commission or not, as the case may be. But I'm very hopeful that the commission's judgment will be sensitive to provincial concerns and that it will set a plan for negotiations for us that will be doable and workable.
[5:15]
G. Wilson: This is an area where there are some concerns. I'm sure the minister is aware of the idea that you can't have more than one, or that you can only have two or three. One of the issues that's going to drive that, obviously, is cost to government. I've just heard the minister say to the Leader of the Third Party that the federal government is largely going to be responsible for that money if we so negotiate it. One would certainly hope that the fiduciary obligation of the federal government is adhered to. All parties in this House recognize that the cost of this in real dollars should be borne by the federal government.
It's bad enough -- and when I say bad enough, I'm talking about the fiscal impact that this province is going to have to bear -- that whatever share we have in the final resolution is not only going to mean a dollar figure but also an impact on land and resources. If we look at the Saskatchewan model, the final cost-share split came down to 49 to 51 percent, or something similar to that. We're talking about somewhere between $4 billion and $15 billion in estimated settlements, so we're not talking about negotiating small dollar amounts here. These are large sums of money that are somehow going to have to be financed by the taxpayers of this province and of Canada. I don't know if the minister has some ideas about that, but it's perhaps better left for debate in estimates.
Let me come back, then, to the question of the facilitation. Given that this readiness is there, and given that you have three or four groups who are equally prepared and ready to go and that there are only moneys available in the facilitation process for two, how does the commission choose? Who goes first? How do you set up your batting order in this system?
Hon. A. Petter: I think that is going to be one of the very tricky tasks that the commission is going to have to advise us upon. I would just point out that if you look at the agreement, which provides in greater detail some of the criteria that the commission may look to, it does provide that in assessing the readiness of parties, the commission must look at whether each party has sufficient resources to carry out the procedure. That will be a variable. If the commission is persuaded that there are not sufficient resources to carry out the procedure, it will then have to prioritize in
[ Page 6499 ]
order to determine which negotiations ought to proceed and which ought not to proceed.
I believe that it's desirable not to create the situation we've had in the province in which only one negotiation could proceed. But I also believe that it's in everyone's interest that we work in stages, that we don't overextend ourselves and produce a multiple set of negotiations that will fail for lack of resources, lack of talent and lack of information.
I guess the answer is that that's one of the jobs the commission has been given: to weigh and balance, and to advise government. Then, of course, government will have to make its own decision, based on the estimates and the funds that are approved through the budgetary debate in this House.
G. Wilson: It seems a little incongruous.... Maybe we're getting too far off on a tangent, into sort of a more philosophical debate which the minister and I might share privately later. It seems to me that there are bands that don't have sufficient resources to proceed; they are going to need some assistance to get their position together. Yet that may be seen as an impediment to their ability to come forward. We have to be careful that we don't, in the interests of equality, try and provide inequality on the basis of fiscal restriction. By the same token, we have to be acutely aware that it's a very expensive process. We have to be ever mindful of the increasing cost to the Canadian taxpayer of both the negotiation and the resolution of the question.
With respect to furthering the purpose of the commission under subsection 5(3), it suggests that the readiness.... Again, I think this is going to be a very important issue. With the indulgence of the Chair, recognizing that the bill does not spell out the detail of section 7.1(f), which is essentially the negotiation framework with respect to each party and readiness, which is in the agreement, if the minister could just tell us.... One of the things that I flagged was: "C. sufficient resources to carry out the procedure." Does that refer strictly to money, or does it refer to non-monetary issues?
The second thing is the question of an adoption of a ratification procedure. What does that mean? Can there be a variety of ratification procedures? What is going to be an acceptable ratification procedure in the eyes of the provincial government? I don't mean to dwell on this point too long. I look down the road -- if I'm allowed to dream for a moment -- and we may be in government in a few years, sitting over there on the government side.
An Hon. Member: Dream on.
G. Wilson: Let me tell you that nations were built from dreams. We intend to build a strong one, so watch out on that side.
Let me say that when we're facing this negotiation process, there has to be some confidence that however that resolution and that question come down, it is going to have the weight of law, so that we don't renegotiate it and so that we don't have a situation where we are in jeopardy of longstanding negotiation or treaties -- if, in fact, there is some method by which the process can be undermined. Does the minister understand what I'm saying? On the question of the adopted ratification, surely there has to be some kind of consistent procedure -- notwithstanding the different models or various interests there may be.
For the purposes of the Chair, I am discussing section 5(3)(a), but I'm referring to section 7.1(f) in the agreement, because it's intrinsically tied here. It says that the first nation "has identified and begun to address any overlapping territorial issues." Well, "begun to address" doesn't mean they've resolved it. If you've begun to address overlapping territorial questions, it doesn't mean that you've resolved those questions. My concern is that in looking at the readiness, if we enter into long negotiations for which we -- I'm talking about governments, not segments of the population -- are going to be responsible for financing, surely the minister has to have greater confidence than we see established in these two documents that the process has a finite time frame. I know that I am asking for the impossible, given the Yukon example and the problems with the Nisga'a and how long that's being going on, but this treaty negotiation can't be an industry in the making. We don't want to be creating a new industry. I notice that you've spent time putting in place some provisions for pensions for the commissioners. It doesn't give me a lot of comfort that we're already building in pension provisions for the commissioners who are going to be sitting on this thing. It makes me think that these people are going to be here for a lifetime career. We don't want this to become an industry.
Maybe the minister can address that under section 5(3)(a), recognizing that much of his discussion may in fact be involved with section 7.0 of the agreement.
Hon. A. Petter: Ultimately, this is going to be a matter of political will. One can state deadlines. The Prime Minister stated that all these agreements should be achieved by the year 2000. The danger with that is that one sets oneself up for failure. I think ultimately it's a question of political will, and certainly no one more than I wants to see this not become an industry, but to lead to meaningful resolutions as quickly as possible. As you pointed out previously, hon. member, there are first nations who are not yet prepared to look upon this process, so I don't think it would be helpful to set up an arbitrary deadline.
I think the commission is being asked to look at some very important issues, but if one says that every issue has to be resolved before you get to the negotiating table, then you never get to the negotiating table. An attempt is being made to have the commission play a mediating role in terms of trying to assure itself -- and through itself, the public -- that there will be mechanisms in place for ratification and for dealing with overlap. Dealing particularly with the overlap issue, recognizing that if we were to insist that all overlap issues be resolved before you get to the negotiating table, you may never get to any negotiating table. It's going to be a process that requires working out, so the commission has been given some discretion
[ Page 6500 ]
there to determine how much definition it must have around the process for overlap. In terms of ratification, is there a procedure that the first nation can point to that will likely lead to a resolution of the issue that the other two parties at the table will find satisfactory?
These are difficult issues, as I know the member well understands, and they're going to have to be worked out. The commission has been given that difficult role of asking: is there enough to proceed? If so, then they'll leave the negotiating process and subsequent negotiations to work out some of the difficulties. Or is there not enough to proceed? That's that mediating role, and it's why we have a commission and why we have talented individuals on that commission who can advise us and hopefully steer us on the right course.
G. Wilson: I still think that it comes down again to.... I know that we've been through this, and I don't want to get back on it. But it's something that I have some very personal concerns with and that I know members of the Liberal opposition have some concerns with. We want to make sure that we have lasting agreements; we want to make sure that what we agree to has longevity. We don't want to enter into negotiations that are going to break down as a result of a set of circumstances around jurisdictional disputes, or whatever. I think all of us would agree that we want a finite conclusiveness to this, because we can't afford not to have that.
I then come down to this question of readiness. It'll be my last comment on it, because I think we've pushed it to the limit. It says under section 7.1(f) -- section 3(b) of the bill -- that part of the readiness section is that it has to establish mechanisms for consultation with non-aboriginal interests. What does that consultation mean in the mind of the minister? We've got some third-party agreements underway that are being negotiated here and put together. It seems to me that there is nothing in this provision about readiness; I guess it's left to the discretion of the commission.
Surely we need more than consultation. I said in the second reading debate that if we're going to have lasting, long-term agreements, they have to include all interests. And all interests not only have to make sure that they are consulted on what's going on but also feel that they are a participant in and somewhat empowered by what is going on, so that in the final resolution to the question there is a sense of equality and justice for all people who have been affected, no matter how large or how small the effect may have been. Yet I don't see anything in here that gives us that kind of confidence.
If the minister thinks that it's going to be done by resolution, order-in-council, or some other third-party agreement, then perhaps now is the time to put that on the record. One of the main concerns we're facing in the province of British Columbia right now, notwithstanding the fact that the minister said that the provincial government was not involved in the aboriginal fishery strategy.... I stand corrected: the provincial government was not involved in the aboriginal fishery strategy. It's a shame that it wasn't, because it should have been. If it had been involved in the aboriginal fishery strategy, we wouldn't have had the problems that were looming this spring.
However, that's not the issue. There has to be some proposition, some mechanism, for involvement, whether it's municipal, resource, stakeholders, people who have fee-simple property who may feel that their property rights might be impinged upon, or whatever. Perhaps the minister can give us some confidence on that.
[5:30]
Hon. A. Petter: I'll certainly try to give you confidence. I will just place this in context: this is an additional requirement that the commission must satisfy itself on. It provides an additional measure of protection, in the sense that the commission has been given a role of assuring itself that the parties -- in this case, the province -- have in fact established a mechanism for consultation.
At the end of the day, though, the member is absolutely correct in saying that the reason the provincial government would want to make sure such mechanisms are in place is that they're essential to ensuring that agreements stand the test of time and that they have the support of the broad mass of British Columbians. That ultimately comes down to a question of political will. We've already acted, based on that enlightened self-interest, as a government that wishes to conclude successful and enduring treaties and to establish mechanisms. The memorandum of understanding we signed with the Union of B.C. Municipalities; the undertaking we gave to the Union of B.C. Municipalities to seek to include them as observers during negotiations; the work we've been doing with the third-party advisory group provincially and the negotiations that have gone on with that group to establish a much more intensive process of sectoral consultation and involvement, to try to give them assurances of participation, with free flow of information to and from the tables; and the work we've been doing in the Nisga'a negotiations to try to develop very strong community-based consultation -- albeit, in that case, under some constraints because of the confidentiality clause in the framework agreement -- are evidence of the seriousness with which we take this political obligation.
On top of all that, we have accepted that the commission has a role as well in ensuring that the province and the federal government are acting in that responsibility.
So this is a superadded additional reassurance. It does not in any way replace or seek to be comprehensive...the assurances that the province has given politically, and must give, and must continue to live up to if we are to have a successful set of negotiations.
G. Wilson: I really have only three other questions on section 5. They are somewhat technical in nature. Let me direct them specifically to the minister so he can answer them in the order that he sees fit. The first is on section 5(3)(d): it says that given agreement between the parties, there can be assistance provided in "obtaining dispute resolution services." What does the minister
[ Page 6501 ]
envision dispute resolution services to mean? Are we talking about mediation? Are we talking about legal issues? Are we talking about a litigation process? What's the dispute resolution service that he is talking about? I'll just let him answer that first.
Hon. A. Petter: The thought here was that there may well be issues that act as a barrier to the parties getting to the table and negotiating. The commission could play a constructive role in facilitating the resolution of those issues by, if the parties wish, assisting them in obtaining some dispute resolution services. I don't want to foreclose what the nature of those services might be. Certainly mediation is the most likely alternative. The commission may develop expertise around some issues and procedures in order to break certain logjams that prevent the parties from proceeding to or continuing at the negotiating table. It was thought that the commission might play a useful role, not in doing the dispute resolution itself but in assisting the parties to obtain appropriate resolution, so that issues won't end up back in the courts where they are not as cooperatively resolved as they might be through a process of mediation. The commission might play a useful role in directing the parties on that.
G. Wilson: Who pays, and where does the money come from for that?
Hon. A. Petter: I think the answer is that it could be paid for by the parties themselves. Conceivably the commission could provide some such services out of its budget, but it would have to be provided for in the budget that is provided to the commission.
G. Wilson: I just wonder if that's part of the federal money coming into this commission, and not the provincial money. Maybe we can talk about that under financing of the commission when we get to that section.
The next question I have concerns section 5(e), which says: "prepare and maintain a public record of the status of the negotiations." Clearly there has to be some process for the public to be fully apprised of the negotiation. What it says here is that we're going to have a public record of the status; that tells me where we are at in the negotiation.
What is going to be available with respect to the issues within negotiation, the content of the negotiations themselves, the issues that are in dispute, where we're at in terms of the arguments, who's put what arguments forward and how they've been advanced and whether there is likely to be -- and there probably is -- some kind of search done with respect to previous negotiations or agreements? Some litigation may be a part of obtaining a certain record. How much of that is going to be included in that public record? Is this a process by which the public is going to be adequately and properly informed about each of these negotiations?
I recognize that an annual report has to be filed, but in that public record, is this like a catalogue of claims underway? Is it some kind of more detailed description of what the issues are so that a student who's following this might use it as a useful tool in understanding the history, progress, and potential resolution of these claims?
Hon. A. Petter: I think the commission is going to have to balance between the desire to provide the fullest information to the public on the status of the negotiations, which will include not only the stage that they are at but what has been resolved -- for example, the Nisga'a negotiations and interprotection measures agreement -- and the need to understand that some elements of negotiations will have to be conducted confidentially. Perhaps there would be information-sharing with certain groups, but not a completely transparent situation. That balance is going to have to be negotiated to some extent by the parties through the framework agreements. It's certainly my hope and intent that we should be able to negotiate framework agreements allowing for a much broader sharing of information than is currently the case in the Nisga'a negotiation. I think the commission will strive to provide as much information as it can on the status of the negotiations and the positions that parties have advanced, but it will also have to respect the need to maintain some element of confidentiality in order for negotiations to proceed through certain critical stages, on the understanding that that information will also be disclosed once those critical stages have passed.
G. Wilson: Basically, the short of what the minister is saying is that once again what this report is going to include is up to the commission.
My final question on section 5 is with respect to the powers of the commission. What does the minister envisage the powers of the commission to be with respect to its right to recommend to government? There is some confusion -- maybe not in anybody else's mind, but certainly in mine -- with respect to this agreement, which tends to provide greater power to the commission. If I may be permitted, hon. Chair, because it is under powers, purposes and duties of the commission, section 8.0 of this agreement says that the commission may adopt bylaws and procedures consistent with the agreement and determine the times, places, meetings and so on -- which you would see as fairly normal. Then says under section 9.0 that the powers and decisions of the commission would provide it an opportunity to essentially engage itself as an ongoing agency free from government. If that's so, this commission is going to incur substantial costs. One would assume it's going to lease premises and engage the services of advisers, officers and staff, all of which are going to have a cost impact.
Given that we've got this commission now facilitating negotiations as an agency that is not a functional part of the government, what are the powers of the commission with respect to its recommendations to government? This bill is not clear on this question. To what extent does this minister see the recommendations or agreements ratified within this commission with respect to allocation of money, the procedure for claims, the ranking of those that are eligible, the agreement on
[ Page 6502 ]
what readiness means -- all of these kinds of things...? To what extent is this government bound by the recommendations of that commission?
Hon. A. Petter: The government is not bound. The recommendations of the commission are the recommendations of the commission. For example, if those recommendations have budgetary implications, those budgetary implications will have to be assessed by government and, ultimately, through the estimates process, by the Legislature. We are in no way relinquishing that authority. Having said that, I will view -- and I'm sure the government will view -- the recommendations of the commission with an open mind, knowing it to be a commission that will take its duties very seriously and will weigh the costs as well as the benefits. I'm sure we will take its recommendations very seriously, as we take seriously the recommendations of other public bodies and commissions. The short answer is: we're not bound.
G. Wilson: Hon. Chair, again I'll take guidance from you if this is the wrong section, but I rise under "Purpose, powers and duties of the commission," because it has the authority, as stated quite clearly here and in the agreement under section 8.0, to enter into financial agreements and long-term leases -- essentially, to enter into the expenditure of funds provided by the federal and provincial governments. Yet under section 16 -- I want to raise this if this is the appropriate place, so that when we get there, I'm not told I should have raised it now -- it says:
"Her Majesty in right of British Columbia must not make any civil claim against the commission, any commissioner, or any employee of or person retained by the commission, for anything done, omitted, reported or said, in the course of the exercise or performance or purported exercise or performance of any power, duty or function under this Act, unless the claim arises from the wilful misconduct or gross negligence of...."
I'm hoping it won't, but should this commission run a major deficit because of long-term expenditures that are incurred, who picks up the tab? What course of legal action does this government have to try to claim against this commission if it runs a debt?
Hon. A. Petter: If the member wishes to pursue this, we might wish to defer it to other sections, such as section 21. The commission must operate within an annual budget that's provided to it. That budget, as I say, will be influenced by the decisions of this Legislature. The provisions with respect to immunity are standard provisions for an independent commission of this kind. The commission will be subject to the regular auditing provisions of the Auditor General Act and therefore is subject to the same scrutiny and expectations of all independent commissions of this kind.
V. Anderson: I wanted to clarify also.... It may be here or you may want to pick it up under section 21. Section 5(3)(b) says: "allocate funds that have been provided to enable first nations to participate in negotiations...." There are two separate budgets, as I understand. One is the budget for the administration and operation of the commission itself, its budget and staff. Secondly, there is the budget which may be available to first nations people and to people from the governments who are negotiating on behalf of those governments in specific negotiations. Are all of the negotiation funds for the first nations people and the government appointees to those negotiations coming through the commission, or are they being paid by the respective governments and only the first nations money coming through the commission? How is that being funded? That's the first question: where are the allocations and what money is being allocated at that point.
[5:45]
Hon. A. Petter: You're absolutely correct. There are two essential streams of funds here: one for the operation of the commission and one for the negotiating funds that the commission will dispense. The negotiating funds that the commission will dispense are for first nations negotiating funds. Funding the federal and provincial negotiating teams remains the responsibility of the federal and provincial governments and will be included within the allocations provided to my ministry and other ministries that might support those negotiations. That is the way the process works.
Was there was a further question that I did not take account of? If you repeat it, I would be happy to answer.
V. Anderson: I suppose during estimates we'll ask you where the money is for the government's part of the negotiation team; that's an important part. I go back to section 5 of the agreement -- and I don't see this stated anywhere in the bill -- which is the funding for the operations of the commission. It seems to me that this section 5 is totally missing in the bill. In the agreement it says where funds should be raised for the first five years of the commission. The sharing of costs is in 5(1). In 5(2) the cost-sharing of the commission shall be annual appropriations from the parliament and approval by Treasury Board and British Columbia, subject to the appropriations by the Legislature. In 5(3) the provincial funds go into a funding agreement with the chief commissioner. It seems to me that 5(1), 5(2) and 5(3) are not in the bill itself. They talk about budgets, but they don't talk about these three processes of securing the budget or of raising it. Neither the five-year agreement nor the extension is there.
Hon. A. Petter: It's correct that they are not spelled out in the bill. If you wish to discuss it in more detail, perhaps under section 21 -- which specifies the annual budget -- we can talk about that. The reason is that some of what is referred to here is just a regular appropriate procedure that's followed in this House and doesn't need to be referenced in the bill, and the agreements themselves are subject to negotiation and may be changed. It wouldn't be appropriate to specify exact sharing in the bill, and indeed the larger cost-sharing negotiations may also affect the way in which these costs are shared in the future.
[ Page 6503 ]
D. Mitchell: I could raise this later on, but if I raise it now it might be just as efficient. This follows on a question that the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast raised on section 5(2). The minister's response raised a question in my mind about the fact that the commission itself: "...has the power and capacity of a natural person, including the power to sue and be sued...." Later on in the bill, under sections 16 and 17, we notice that commission members themselves are indemnified. They are protected against any civil action and they are indemnified against any other obligations that come out of the agreement. Why was that necessary? Why is the indemnification required? If on the one hand section 5(2) is saying that the commission has the power and capacity of a natural person and can be sued or take action, then why has it been deemed necessary to indemnify individual members of the commission? I suppose there's a question as to why this was inserted into the bill.
We could raise this later on or we could raise it now. I leave that to the minister's discretion, but if he could address it now it might save time later on.
Hon. A. Petter: I hope that's the case. As I understand it, the provisions regarding indemnification and protection of commission members are standard provisions where you have an independent commission and you wish to assure the members of that commission that they individually will not be liable, except in the case of gross negligence or wilful misconduct, for simply performing duties that they have been asked to carry out. It provides a measure of security to them as individuals. The identification of the commission as having the power and capacity of a natural person, including the power to sue and be sued, is simply to assure that the commission's legal status to enter into contracts, for example, and to be subject to liability is confirmed in the legislation. And I take it from the advice I have received that these are standard provisions that are included either in legislation or by way of contract to govern bodies of this kind.
Sections 5 to 9 inclusive approved.
On section 10.
G. Wilson: With respect to the chief executive officer, I wonder if the minister might want to elaborate a little on exactly what the powers of this officer are regarding the operation and supervision of the day-to-day operations of the commission and regarding section 10(2), where it says, "In the event of the absence or incapacity of the chief commissioner...the other commissioners may designate, by unanimous agreement, one of them to act as the chief commissioner during the absence," with respect to the fact that this is a neutral position. In the event that this position is made absent, to what extent does it change the decision-making process of the commission if indeed the chief executive officer is supposedly a neutral participant in the discussion? I wonder if the minister might want to comment on that.
There are two parts to that question. What exactly is the authority of the chief commissioner? Secondly, how do we deal with that question in the person's absence?
Hon. G. Clark: I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Committee of Supply A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. G. Clark: I'd like to advise all members of the House that we will be sitting tomorrow, as per the standing orders. With that, I move that the House stand recessed for two minutes.
Motion approved.
The House recessed at 5:55 p.m.
The House resumed at 5:59 p.m.
Hon. G. Clark: I call committee on Bill 22, hon. Speaker.
TREATY COMMISSION ACT
(continued)
The House in committee on Bill 22; H. Giesbrecht in the chair.
On section 10.
G. Wilson: Thank you, hon. Chair, and welcome to this position of great status in this debate. I look forward to some great progress with you as Chair of this debate. If we're going to have such short recesses, my recommendation to this House is that they're going to have to expand the number of facilities, because I'll tell you, two minutes is barely enough time.
When we did recess the minister was just about to answer a very intelligent question put to him with respect to the role of the chief executive officer. In the event that there is an absence -- given that that position is supposed to be neutral -- and one of the other members of the commission takes that position, what happens to the voting weight of that commission?
Hon. A. Petter: I might just say that during the recess I flushed with pride as I thought about this legislation.
In any event, in answer to the question that was put by the member prior to the recess, the question was twofold, as I understood it. One question was about the chief commissioner as chief executive officer of the commission. That is simply to provide that the chief commissioner can carry out the day-to-day
[ Page 6504 ]
administrative functions and attendant responsibilities expected of such an official.
With respect to the question of incapacity and the provision for someone else to stand in the stead of the chief commissioner, that does not in any way alter the quorum requirements under section 13. There is a specific provision for that in that the individual must be counted as both commissioner and chief commissioner. Whether that alters it or not, there's a specific provision to deal with that in section 13. In section 14 I think it's clear that it does not change the voting procedures in the sense that that individual must be counted as a representative of the respective government or first nations for the purposes of section 14. We can deal with that under those two sections if the member wishes.
[6:00]
D. Mitchell: I have one final question on section 10. If in the incapacity of the chief executive officer the other commissioners can by unanimous agreement designate one of the other commissioners to replace the commissioner, what is anticipated in the event that unanimous agreement cannot be achieved? Will the commission be stalemated? Will the commission itself be incapacitated by virtue of the lack of the ability to achieve unanimous agreement?
Hon. A. Petter: I imagine that what would happen in any event is that the principals would have to go back and meet, and possibly, if the incapacity was serious enough that the chief commissioner was not going to be available, we might have to contemplate appointing a new chief commissioner.
D. Mitchell: This is a fairly unique body that's being established by this act, and the minister has spoken well on that. But the designation of the leadership of the commission would seem to be something quite significant, and the fact that the minister is hypothesizing with us in this committee right now about what may or may not happen suggests that this section hasn't been very well thought out. If in fact the chief executive officer is incapacitated for whatever reason, and unanimous agreement cannot be achieved, is the minister suggesting that we would have to go back to plan A and actually appoint a new chief executive officer in order for the commission to function?
Hon. A. Petter: What I'm suggesting is that, in any process, one can always imagine the worst-case scenario and what I've found -- and I'm sure the member has as well -- is that the parties to a process will inevitably make their best efforts to make processes work. The chief commissioner's role, however, is a crucial one here. The chief commissioner must have the confidence of all the parties in order to fulfil that role. Therefore what are the alternatives? I think this provision has been very well thought out. The alternatives are to appoint one of the other commissioners -- provided the other parties agree -- in the case of a temporary absence. Without that agreement, I don't see how you could proceed in that way. If that's not possible, the only other alternative is for the principals to get back together. I would point out that the selection of a chief commissioner occupied a considerable amount of time among the principals in order to appoint that individual who does have the respect of not only the three principals, but hopefully of most British Columbians. I don't think the member would welcome a situation in which we could, with any less consideration, find a substitute to fill in, because that office must have the confidence of not only the principals but the people of this province.
Section 10 approved.
On section 11.
G. Wilson: I have a very brief question with respect to that. It suggests that after the principals have reached agreement, the remuneration and the terms and conditions of the appointment of the commissioners are to be fixed by order-in-council. This implies that these commissioners are going to set their own salaries. Is that not the case? I mean, I hope it's not the case.
Hon. A. Petter: The principals have reached agreement. The principals are the first nations summit and the provincial and federal governments, not the commissioners.
G. Wilson: Can the minister then flesh out that proposal a little bit? Where is that going to be set out in terms of this agreement? How is that going to be done? Presumably there's a budget that has to be submitted. In fact, we've got some information coming forward on that. But with respect to this procedure, with the cost of this commission -- obviously salaries and what have you; this is pseudo-public body, if not a public body -- presumably you'll want to make sure that this is done in an appropriate way.
Hon. A. Petter: I think the situation is that because this is a body in which there are a number of commissions, the terms of whose appointments must conform in some way, there's a necessity for the principals to sit down and work out an acceptable arrangement for the commissioners. Then those commissioners are appointed by the respective principals according to their procedures, by order of the Governor-in-Council, by order of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council and by resolution of the summit. So the procedure is for the principals -- the federal and provincial governments and the first nations summit, to come together to work out a common set of terms and conditions governing the appointment of the commissioners, and then for the principals to go away and make those appointments happen in accordance with those terms and conditions, through their respective instruments.
G. Wilson: I don't want to belabour this point, because it's not a huge one with me. But let's just use the province of British Columbia as one of the principals.
[ Page 6505 ]
Can the minister walk us through that process? Who in this government is responsible for that negotiation? Where is that going to be established in terms of revenue and how is that going to be accounted for? Is this part of the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs, for example? Is that how that's going to be budgeted and estimated, and all the rest of that?
Hon. A. Petter: The amounts are included within the budget of the commission and must be appropriated as part of the budget of the commission. The agreement is reached by virtue of the principals getting together, working out those common terms, and agreeing on the appointments. Those are then embodied within the legal framework of the respective bodies through orders-in-council or, in the case of the summit, by resolution.
Sections 11 to 13 inclusive approved.
On section 14.
G. Wilson: Section 14 comes down again to the voting weights on those issues. During debate on section 5, the minister suggested that this would be an appropriate place for us to discuss the question of the weighted -- if I can use that term -- or non-weighted vote. It states: "Decisions of the commission must be made by agreement of at least one commissioner appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council, the Governor in Council and the Summit respectively." The minister implied during discussion of section 5 that that would mean it couldn't be possible for the appointee of the government of British Columbia to be in disagreement with the others. I don't read it that way. Perhaps the minister can explain how that is so.
Hon. A. Petter: The intent of this provision is to ensure that no decision of the commission can be reached without the agreement of at least one commissioner appointed -- and look at the word respectively here -- by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, the Governor-in-Council and the summit. In other words, the provincial appointee must be included in any agreement that is reached in order for that agreement to constitute a decision of the commission.
V. Anderson: Is it your understanding that the chief commissioner does not have a vote at any of the meetings? It's the other four persons that vote at any of the meetings.
Hon. A. Petter: It's my understanding that the chief commissioner would have a vote, but for the purposes of a decision, the provision in section 14(2) would apply.
G. Wilson: It was my understanding that the chief commissioner was neutral. If the chief commissioner has a vote, then the chief commissioner is clearly not neutral. That's the reason I asked that question. My understanding was that because that person has been appointed by all three parties, that person is neutral. If the person is neutral, they act as a Chair. I could understand that the Chair would have a vote in a tie-breaking process, like the mayor of a municipal authority has an opportunity to cast such a ballot. Generally speaking, my understanding was that it was a neutral position. Now the minister is saying that he does have a vote, in which case the neutrality isn't there and the weight of this commission changes.
Hon. A. Petter: No. There are two points to be made here. The neutrality of the chief commissioner is by virtue of the fact that the appointment -- in this case, his appointment -- was brought about by agreement of all of the principals and the appointment then promulgated by the three parties. Simply because people vote doesn't mean that they're not neutral. Judges vote in the sense that they make decisions, but we assume they're neutral. The chief commissioner does have a right to vote, although the chief commissioner may decide not to. But for the purposes of decisions, it is the consent of the commissioners appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor, the Governor-in-Council and the First Nations Summit, one of each of whom must approve in order for a decision to be arrived at.
G. Wilson: Is the chief commissioner appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council?
Hon. A. Petter: The chief commissioner is appointed by all three: the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, the Governor-in-Council and the First Nations Summit by resolution.
G. Wilson: Therefore it is possible for the individual representing the province of British Columbia to be in a contrary position to the decisions taken, because the chief commissioner, who is a member appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, can vote. Is that right?
Hon. A. Petter: No.
G. Wilson: Why not?
Hon. A. Petter: That would require a very tortured and unresponsive interpretation. One commissioner appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council clearly applies to a commissioner who is appointed as the province's commissioner, not a commissioner.... Well, if it were intended to include the chief commissioner, it would say the chief commissioner or a commissioner appointed by all three parties. You would require a very tortured and peculiar legal argument -- one that wouldn't do you well in law school, hon. member -- to suggest otherwise.
G. Wilson: Well, one has to defer to these lawyers, because when it comes to language they're able to take what is a relatively nice and flowing language like English and turn it into something that is indeed tortured.
[ Page 6506 ]
Let's move on. The minister has said that there can be no decision of this commission that would run counter to the position of the person appointed by the provincial government. That's the point I'm trying to establish. If the minister can simply acknowledge that, we can move on.
Hon. A. Petter: I acknowledge that. That's the legal advice we've received as to the purpose and, indeed, the effect of this section.
V. Anderson: I don't quite understand this one yet. A member of the summit must vote for it, a member of the province must vote for it, and a member from Canada must vote for it. It it's true that at least those three must vote unanimously at any time, then it's irrelevant whether the chairman votes or not. Unless all three vote for it, his vote is irrelevant. If they all vote for it, his vote is irrelevant. Whether he has a vote or not is irrelevant, because he can't override the other three anyway if all three must vote in favour of it.
[6:15]
Hon. A. Petter: That's a very interesting question. Perhaps the chief commissioner will decide to abstain regularly for that very reason, or the commission may decide to hear the chief commissioner's view in advance of other commissioners. That will have to be worked out. The intent of this provision was to ensure that decisions would not be reached without the concurrence of the representatives appointed by each of the federal and provincial governments and one of the representatives appointed by the summit to sit as commissioners.
G. Wilson: The member for Vancouver-Langara has raised an interesting point: that is, notwithstanding the fact that the members of the summit have two people on the commission, if both the province and the federal government must agree in order for passage to occur, the weighted vote, if there is such a vote, is de facto going to rest with the two governments, not with the aboriginal people. The minister shakes his head, but he just said that in order for it to pass, there has to be the provision of one member of the summit, plus the two other governments. If it's the case that three votes out of five will pass it, then no matter what happens, this commission is run, governed and maintained by the two governments. You can't have passage of a vote unless the two voting governments agree. Is that not right?
Hon. A. Petter: As is often the case, there's a lot mixed up in that question. There must be concurrence by a representative of the summit, the federal government and the provincial government. I suppose one can argue, as members did previously, that the summit benefits by having an additional member on the commission; now the member is trying to argue that the summit is somehow disadvantaged by having an additional member, because of the voting structure. I don't think you can have it both ways. This is a provision that ensures that one of the appointees of the summit and each of the appointees of the federal and provincial government must be in concurrence before a decision can be taken.
Section 14 approved.
On section 15.
V. Anderson: I know we've discussed the nature of the summit back in the definitions, but here we're to rely on the resolutions of the summit. Could you explain to us whether the summit has officers that are elected or appointed by it who transfer on behalf of the summit...? What's the nature of their definition or resolution? What is the understanding of the "rules" that have been developed by the summit? What are the continuing responsibilities of the summit that enable this decision to come to the commission with understanding and certainty?
Hon. A. Petter: The purpose of this provision is to provide in legislation the recognition that resolutions of the summit can be taken as having some status with respect to the carrying-out of the functions of the commission. That's important.
Yes, indeed, the summit has passed a resolution which specifies in some detail the mechanisms through which they reach their decisions. I won't go through all the details, but, for example, it states that the decisions of the summit are made by consensus; that decisions in connection with its responsibilities related to Treaty Commission agreements shall be set out in the form of a resolution, and resolutions of the summit shall be endorsed by the signatures of three members of the task group; and that the summit shall notify representatives of Canada and British Columbia in writing of the names of the task group members, changes to the makeup of the task group, changes to the number or nature of signatures required to endorse a resolution, and changes to the mandate of the summit or task group directed to the Treaty Commission process. So there is a fairly formal resolution, which I'd be happy to share with the member or any other members, that sets out the mechanism through which the summit will operate in order to satisfy the other governments of decisions that it reaches.
V. Anderson: Thank you for bringing that to our attention. If we had had that agreement earlier, it might have solved some of our earlier questions and uncertainties. But we weren't aware that such a document existed, and we would be happy to receive a copy of it so that we can follow up from there.
Hon. A. Petter: I'll undertake to provide you with a copy.
Sections 15 to 17 inclusive approved.
On section 18.
D. Mitchell: We saw in section 11 how remuneration and other terms and conditions of the
[ Page 6507 ]
commissioners were established by a separate process. Now under section 18, we're looking at commission personnel -- the actual staff to be employed and engaged by the commission. It's noted in particular in this section that the Public Service Act and the Public Service Labour Relations Act do not apply to the commission and its employees, and so employees of this commission are being exempted from the statutes that would normally govern public employees. Can the minister indicate what guidelines, if any, are going to be followed by the commission regarding the terms and conditions of employment of personnel of the commission?
Hon. A. Petter: Yes, that will be a matter for the commission to decide. I would simply add that this kind of provision is found elsewhere in other legislation. For example, the British Columbia Transit Act, with respect to the transit authority, contains a similar provision. I think you'll find a similar provision in other independent bodies that are created by government.
D. Mitchell: Could the minister inform the committee as to what size of staff the commission is contemplated as having under this act?
Hon. A. Petter: Further to my previous answer, when we get to section 20 the member may want to note that the commission does have bylaw-making powers to deal with some of those issues.
The decision as to the number of staff will to some extent be to the discretion of the commission, but what we envisage at the present time is a staff in the neighbourhood of 15 or so people.
Sections 18 to 20 inclusive approved.
On section 21.
G. Wilson: We have some concerns with respect to what is proposed in terms of the wording of this particular section. It says that the commission must submit its budget for each financial year to the principals for review and approval before the deadlines set by the principals. What we'd like to see is more clarification. I don't think this really changes the intent of what is there, but I would move the following amendment to read: "The commission must submit its proposed budget for each financial year to the respective legislative assemblies, federal and provincial, for approval prior to the deadlines set by the principals." I think that that is really what is intended by this, and I don't think it changes it very substantially. I'll just sign this and give it to you, if you don't have one that's already signed.
The Chair: Proceed, hon. member.
On the amendment.
G. Wilson: If I might just speak to this amendment, I think that the intent of the bill and the intent of the amendment are similar. I don't think they're much different. We're hoping to have clarification that essentially this House will have some authority over the establishment of budgets prior to the principals being empowered to spend on behalf of the commission.
Hon. A. Petter: I must regrettably speak against this amendment for two reasons. The first is that it's superfluous; there is a budgetary approval process in this House. It's known as the budget and the estimates process that flows from the budget. There will be ample opportunity to debate, in the estimates process, the provincial share of any budget provided to the commission.
The other is that it would be highly inappropriate for us, through this amendment, to seek to bind the federal parliament with respect to it having to approve budgets of the commission. For us to agree to this amendment would require the federal government to give approval prior to the commission's budget being set. It would be inappropriate constitutionally and in every other way for us to bind the federal parliament in that way.
G. Wilson: Speaking in favour of this amendment, I would suggest that because mirror legislation is being put forward by the federal government, one of the questions I put to the minister earlier was whether or not companion legislation had been worded to be compatible with this, so that we could look at it as a dichotomous process whereby we had two equal halves of this bill, if you want -- one provincial and one federal.
It strikes me that it is not at all incongruous for us to decide, given that there's going to be equal negotiation and that this bill and the agreement say in much more detail that the federal and provincial governments both have to agree on the expenditure. Given that we are in the middle if not the end of May in this fiscal year, and the Aboriginal Affairs estimates still have not come before this House -- we still have no idea of what the minister is merrily spending away in his budget -- it seems to us that, because this is a brand-new process and there is a three-year time line in place for the commissioner, it would be both fiscally responsible and appropriate for this House to have an approval process prior to the expenditure, so that we can keep tabs on the rising costs -- if there are indeed rising costs -- of this new and innovative process.
Hon. A. Petter: Well, I'll simply say that I'm very sombre about all my expenditure decisions; I do not spend merrily away.
Having said that, to create a special approval process for this one commission seems to me to be highly irregular, and I will just reiterate the points I made earlier. There is ample opportunity through the estimates process to scrutinize and debate the expenditures that will be made in relation to this commission. More importantly than that, to try to impose, through an amendment on the floor of the House, a requirement on the federal Parliament to approve this budget prior to the commission running -- knowing how the federal parliamentary process works -- could guarantee that
[ Page 6508 ]
this commission won't be up and running for many more years. For that reason alone I recommend that this amendment must be rejected.
Amendment negatived on division.
Section 21 approved.
On section 22.
G. Wilson: I hear the collective voices of those on this side and those on the opposite side, and I just don't know how these votes go the way they go. However, notwithstanding the fact that maybe we need vocal transplants or something....
On section 22, with respect to the audit, again we're encouraged, quite frankly, that an independent auditor is designated by the commission, and that a report of the audit shall be made to the commission. Notwithstanding that the minister will argue that an annual report needs to be made, in which an audited statement has to be included, I just want to cut him off at the pass before he comes out with that argument as to why the following amendment is not acceptable. I believe this is an appropriate amendment, and we would like to move an amendment to section 22 that says: "The accounts and financial transactions of the commission must be audited annually by a qualified independent auditor designated by the commission, and a public report be tabled in the provincial Legislature by the minister responsible." With that, I would move the amendment.
[6:30]
On the amendment.
G. Wilson: In speaking to the amendment, let me say that what we're attempting to do in putting this forward is to say that the commission itself would not be the sole recipient of such an audited report. But once again we would like to see a full and proper accounting of the process tabled within the Legislature, outside of the annual report that is called for within the legislation. I don't think it's anything that is inconsistent with the intent of the bill, and it certainly is not something that should be in any way objectionable to this minister, who I know has the interests of all British Columbians at heart and is a very open-minded minister and one who will accept this amendment.
Hon. A. Petter: Regrettably, I must speak against the amendment. The provision for an annual report and for its being submitted to the Legislative Assembly is already well covered in this bill by the effect of sections 22, 23(1) and 23(3). If you read 23(1), you will find that it says in that section: "As soon as possible, but in any case within 6 months, after the end of each of its financial years, the commission must submit to the principals a report of all activities under this Act for that financial year, including the financial statements and the auditor's report." Section 23(3) says: "The minister must cause a copy of the report submitted under subsection (1) to be laid before the Legislative Assembly within the first 30 days that the House is sitting after the report is made." So the requirement of public reporting of the auditor's statement is already well provided for in this bill, and this amendment does not in any way, in my view, assist in providing the Legislature with information that it isn't already assured of through the provisions of the proposed bill.
G. Wilson: We are enlightened every day in this House. Now we find that this open-minded minister isn't as open minded as we all thought he was. I said, in moving this, that notwithstanding the public report and the audit provisions, if you look at the timing that is provided for within this particular bill, you will see that it says "within six months." The minister jumped ahead to section 23(1), so with your good grace, I shall continue on that section -- and then on section 23(3), which says that the report must be laid before the Legislative Assembly within the first 30 days of the House sitting after the report is made. Well, if we're talking about six months and 30 days after the Legislative Assembly sits, we may not get this report with the audit until well into this fiscal year or the next fiscal year. We may not even get it until the first sitting of the Legislature in the next year, which is consistent with the auditing and reporting process of virtually every other agency of government, which we think is a travesty on behalf of the public. We want to see quarterly audited reviews so that we know how the money is being spent during the year in which it's spend, not six months after the fact in the next year, when there's not a darned thing anybody in this province can do about it. That's the point. Notwithstanding the minister's protestation, I'm sure that now that he recognizes the intent of this amendment, he will -- enlightened as he is -- come forward and support this amendment.
Hon. A. Petter: I'm a little confused, hon. Chair, because the member now seems to be speaking to an anticipated amendment he may move under section 23, not to the amendment under section 22. I don't see how the amendment under section 22 furthers anything. I can anticipate what his amendment might be under section 23 and tell him that the provision of six months was deemed necessary to facilitate the activities of the auditors and the completion of the report, if that will provide him with reassurance. But I don't see how his comments relate to the recommendation of an amendment under section 22.
G. Wilson: Well, that's a cute trick, but let me tell the public how he did it. I gave him a copy of my amendment to section 23(1). That's how he can anticipate it: he has already read it.
Interjection.
G. Wilson: Yes, he's trying to be helpful.
The minister will notice that the amendment to 22 is consistent with the amendment to 21, and indeed the amendment to 23. We are trying to enhance the public reporting process; we're not trying to single out this commission. If we were in a position of authority in
[ Page 6509 ]
government in this province, we would have a much more public reporting process for all expenditures of government moneys so that the people could see how their moneys were being spent in all capacities, not just this commission. With respect to that amendment, that audited report would be made at the same time as it goes to the commission. It would come to the Legislative Assembly so that we would have an opportunity to review, in a timely manner, the report commissioned by the auditor. It wouldn't be six months later and 30 days after that, given the first sitting of the House -- which may in fact be eight or ten months later. We would get to review the audited statements a year after the fact. In the Public Accounts Committee we worry about what happened last year instead of what's going on under our noses right now, with a rising deficit to the point of $2.6 billion and rising, notwithstanding our credit rating, which I think the Minister of Finance is celebrating tonight.
D. Schreck: I would just like to point out to the leader of the Liberal Party that for the first time since the auditor general has served in that post he has complimented this government for bringing forth public accounts and reporting to this House prior to any of the time deadlines specified, and within the fiscal year in which the report is actually tabled. I would say that the anxiety raised by the member opposite over timely reporting is well-refuted by the auditor general himself.
G. Wilson: One should not rise to the bait that is thrown one's way at all times. However, recognizing that the hon. member opposite from Lonsdale and I share a seat on the Public Accounts Committee, I am well aware of the auditor general's report. I am well aware of what's contained in it, and I wouldn't take too much plaudits from it. When we take a look at what the auditor is likely to come up with when he checks out this year's expenditures, we'll really see what this government is all about. However, my point is that the statement by the member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale has nothing whatsoever to do with this bill. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the amendment. It doesn't detract from the value of the amendment. We're on section 22, and I would move that amendment pass.
Hon. A. Petter: Regrettably, I must speak against the amendment. We have built into this bill guarantees that audits will be conducted and provided through the commission's report to this Legislature in a timely fashion. You can find other acts that do not provide the same degree of certainty -- about six months -- as this one will do. I know the member likes to protest, but to quote a passage from Macbeth that I think the leader of the Third Party quoted earlier, I think in this case he simply doth protest too much in trying to saddle the commission or this particular agency with some duties and reporting requirements that are just not commonly found in other provisions of this House.
G. Wilson: As knowledgable as the member is of Shakespeare, he'll know that one also recognizes that nothing is evil but thinking makes it so. To suggest that this amendment is in any way other than constructive is a complete misreading of what is intended.
To be serious for a moment, sections 21, 22, and 23.... We have a proposed amendment to not only make a more timely audit available for public scrutiny but to build in a guarantee that we are going to have a chance to look at the auditing process at a time that will make future budgets essentially determined by or dependent on the kind of well-meant spending that has gone on in times past. It's simply a measure to try to bring a more fiscally accountable and responsible government to the people of British Columbia. It has nothing to do with distrusting this commission or distrusting the events around which this commission are operating.
We would argue that quarterly audit reviews that are publicly available is the way to go. If we can amend legislation to start to bring in that process, then we'd like to see that done.
Amendment negatived.
Section 22 approved.
On section 23.
G. Wilson: Now I know how the Canucks felt in their last game. Notwithstanding, you've got to be out on the ice trying to score a goal. You look at the clock and know that the time is marching down, and this is about as much chance of success as you've got, given the tremendous volume of nays from the two or three members opposite, notwithstanding the 30 of us over here. Maybe I embellish the numbers a little.
We want to amend section 23(1), and I'll read it. I move that section 23 be amended by deleting "As soon as possible, but in any case within 6 months...." and substituting therefor: "As soon as possible, but in any case within 3 months...." The change is that the commission must submit a report to the principals three months, not six months, after the end of each of its financial years. The reason we would amend it to three months is because we believe that a three-month provision provides the opportunity to put in place a process of quarterly reporting. Given that we would like to see a quarterly audit and there are 12 months in a year, the minister can probably figure out the reason for the number.
On the amendment.
Hon. A. Petter: I appreciate the sentiment behind the proposed amendment. I would simply point out that the key wording in this provision 23(1) is: "as soon as possible." The commission must submit its report, including its audited statement, as soon as possible, and "...in any case within 6 months...." provides an outer limit, one that hopefully will not have to be observed in each and every case.
However, I want the member to know that we did look at a shorter time period. I understand that three months was discussed, but the belief was that this
[ Page 6510 ]
would potentially hamstring matters and not provide enough time to be assured of a full audit, so the decision was made to allow the six months for that to be accomplished. The directive to the commission here is that it be done as soon as possible. That directive then provides a further assurance that it be no more than six months, but this is clearly just the outer limit. I think any less than that would unduly place burdens on the commission that may not be realized, and we don't want to create false expectations. I direct the member's attention to the first four words, which are the operative words of the section.
G. Wilson: I note with interest that the minister talks about outer limits. We're trying to move to the modern era, which talks of the next generation. Those who watch any science fiction will know what I'm talking about.
The salient point here is that if we're going to have audits that are meaningful and worth something more than a place to collect a little more dust on the shelves of those members who take the time to read the report, and if both the public audit from the auditor general as well as private audits commissioned by statute requirement are going to be worthwhile and really take a shot at trying to spend the taxpayer's money more wisely, then it's time to move to quarterly audit reviews so that we can, within a budget year, assess how we're spending our money. That's the proposition here. I'm disappointed, frankly, that this modern, forward-thinking minister is locked in the outer limits instead of having moved to the next generation. Perhaps "deep space nine" is a more appropriate line.
Hon. A. Petter: I'll take a last crack at this, and then I guess we'll have to go to the outer limits together. The outer limits, as you refer to the six months, is not what this forward-thinking, progressive minister wishes to see observed; it's the "as soon as possible." Having said that, we don't want to put a provision in the bill that will prevent a full and thorough audit so that the Legislature can have the best information. We've given a directive to the commission in law that they provide us with the documents as soon as possible. We've given a further directive that it take no more than six months. That seems to me a forward-thinking and progressive suggestion that can enjoy the support of all members of the House.
[6:45]
Amendment negatived.
Section 23 approved.
On section 24.
V. Anderson: In subsection 24(1) it says "preventing the principals from amending the agreement." The agreement is what the principals set up by order-in-council previously, as we discussed earlier; you're talking about amending the agreement. Will that amendment be tabled in the Legislature as soon as it is passed, if any amendments...? How is the Legislature going to keep up-to-date with any amendments that are made? Will there be an undertaking that they will be tabled on a regular basis so that we will know what they are, or will we only find them out by mistake somewhere down the line? I think that's an important question. I would have preferred to have had an amendment that they would be tabled in the Legislature, but it wouldn't be wise at this point to try. We would get no more success.
Hon. A. Petter: Let's remember that the amendments -- if there are to be any -- will go through a very public process involving all three parties. So I think, first of all, you can be assured that any amendments that are contemplated will be well-known long before they are agreed to, simply by the nature of what has to transpire in order for an amendment to take place. Secondly, the amendments will likely require an order-in-council, which also will be publicly disclosed. I can say as a matter of political commitment that I certainly will undertake to inform members opposite if and when amendments are initiated.
I do not think it would be wise to include that in the bill. However, I would point this out: if any amendments were contemplated that went so far as to in any way alter or deviate from the substance of this bill, those amendments could not be accomplished without changes to the bill itself, and that would necessitate debate in this Legislature as well. Hopefully those comments are responsive to the member's concerns.
G. Wilson: I couldn't disagree with the minister more. I don't think the amendments are going to be a public process. The operation of this commission isn't going to be a public process. By the very nature of the commission, the way that it's established, the way that it's structured, its work and what it has to do, this is not going to be done in public. Yet the proposition that this commission is dealing with -- a critical one for the province of British Columbia and for future generations of British Columbians, aboriginal and non-aboriginal -- is absolutely in the public interest in terms of their right to know, their need to know and their desire to know. We hear that from people now, who say that they want to know more about what's going on.
I couldn't disagree with the minister more, and I couldn't agree with my colleague from Vancouver-Langara more. We are concerned that what we're dealing with -- and I keep coming back to this -- is not just the bill but also an agreement. It says: "Nothing in this act must be interpreted as preventing the principals from amending the agreement." That means the province of British Columbia, the federal government and the summit can get together and amend this agreement. This agreement has the right to disburse money. Am I right? I'm right. If that's the case, it seems to me that it's in the interest of the elected members of the province of British Columbia to make sure that any amendment to this agreement has the authority of this House.
As a result of that, I would move the following amendment in the perhaps-futile attempt to get it
[ Page 6511 ]
through. Nevertheless, let it be noted for the record that we would amend it to read: "Nothing in this act must be interpreted as preventing the principals from amending this agreement, provided that such amendments are tabled in and passed by the Legislative Assembly." We would move that in the hope that the vast numbers on this side, if we can even get it ruled in order, might pass it.
On the amendment.
Hon. A. Petter: I appreciate the sentiment that the member expresses, and I think I already responded to some of the substantive concerns. Let me go back to basics. Just so the member is not confused about this, this commission could have been created, had the original agreement provided it, without any legislative involvement. The parties wished there to be legislative involvement for a variety of reasons. One of those reasons was to give the agreement and the legislation the light of day, because we, as a government, feel exactly as you do: it's important that these matters be aired in public and subject to debate. Had we not wished to do that, had we wished to engage in some secrecy, we could have proceeded with an agreement that wouldn't be embodied through legislation, and all of these very important provisions would not have even been subject to scrutiny in this Legislature through this kind of legislative debate. So I appreciate that the member says: "Gee, it would be nice to have the assurance that those amendments that might take place that don't affect the fundamental principles of the bill come before the House and we debate them and pass them." I understand that. But goodness gracious, this government has gone to tremendous lengths to ensure that this is a public and open process and that these provisions are debated. We wanted this -- it didn't have to happen through legislation -- because we believe this commission does have an important public duty and must be seen by the public as acting in a fair way. And that will remain the case, I am sure, whether it is the member's party, or the third party in the House, which becomes government at some time -- God forbid -- in the future. So I think we have a common interest in ensuring the activities of the commission are public; the bill is evidence of that fact. And while the member is constantly getting up and saying, "But, but, but, it could be better", I want to say to the member that sometimes -- and I'm not sure this is Shakespeare, it probably isn't -- "enough is as good as a feast."
G. Wilson: I think that comes from some -- he's not here -- I was going to say some Scot's suggestion, and I don't want to get into that because I'll get into trouble.
For the minister to say that we could have done this without legislation.... I could have been born American if my parents had chosen to live in America and not in Canada. The fact is they didn't, and therefore I am what I am. And this bill is what it is, because of the nature of an agreement that has been signed by the Prime Minister and the Premier of British Columbia. So there's no point in saying that we didn't have to do it. You do have to by virtue of the agreement. We have a responsible and sensible amendment here; it is one that is going to put the Legislature in a position of having scrutiny over any amendments to this agreement which may impact on the tax base of this province and the taxpayers of B.C.
Hon. A. Petter: My last kick at the can.
Interjection.
Hon. A. Petter: Not at a member personally, just at the issue.
The point is not what the agreement provides; the point is that a commission of this kind could have been created without going through this very public process. This is indicative of the fact that this government wants this to be open, wants audits, wants the Legislature to be assured it will receive this information and wants the member opposite to be able to debate these fine provisions. That's the point: there were choices along the way. Those choices could have led to a less open procedure; they didn't. They led to the procedure we have, so the member can get up and make his constructive and less constructive suggestions throughout this debate, and I appreciate those suggestions. But it does seem to me that we have gone well beyond what other governments might have done in order to ensure that these issues are fully aired and debated in public. And I want to assure the member we will continue to do so.
G. Wilson: At the risk of fighting for the last word on this, I'm going to yield beyond this point because it's clear the minister doesn't recognize...and I offer this in the most sincere way, and I mean to do so with all seriousness and with a great deal of sensitivity, as the minister said.
The fact is that negotiations around the aboriginal question are not a public process in B.C. The vast majority of British Columbians haven't got a clue what's being negotiated. They don't know what land is under claim. They have absolutely no understanding of what this Treaty Commission is all about and of what it means to them. They have no understanding of what the long-term impact is going to be not only on their own properties, some of which fear for it, but they have no understanding of what it's going to mean to the resource base in this province and how it's going to involve future generations of British Columbians in a massive payment of moneys -- if that's what is negotiated through this process. Your own Peat Marwick report has said that the resolution of this question is going to be somewhere between $4 billion and $15 billion. I mean, we're not talking about a small bill here. This agreement is a milestone that we can be proud of -- all of us. And I've already said that I commend the minister for taking this kind of approach. Consensus is required. We must not shirk from the responsibility of elected members, however, to inform the public at every opportunity. With all respect to those members sitting here, I'm under no illusion that there is a great public hearing this debate right now. I do so in this debate because I think it's important for the
[ Page 6512 ]
record to show that the debate has taken place. When the people request knowledge of what is going on, I can send them something so they can hear my side, your side and the sides of all members and make up their own minds whether or not they think this is good or bad. That's what our role is.
When I make this amendment, I do so with sincere intent that if this agreement is going to be changed, because this agreement could be changed and it could very drastically affect the way we negotiate and settle land claims -- 110 percent of this province is under claim, I'm told.... If we don't think that this legislative authority in this Legislative Assembly is the proper and appropriate place to debate any of those amendments, then I think we're shirking our obligation and responsibilities.
Notwithstanding what the minister feels in terms of the public process that he believes he's engaged in, there is another saying. It says sometimes, when you stand so close to the forest, you can't see the forest for the trees. Unfortunately, I think the minister may be there. A very large number of British Columbians are extremely concerned about what's going on on this issue. They have no idea of what is being negotiated, how they're impacted or what future generations of British Columbians may face. We have an obligation to educate them to that effect. That's why I move that amendment. I hope that everybody will pass it.
Amendment negatived.
Section 24 approved.
Section 25 approved.
Title approved.
Hon. A. Petter: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
Bill 22, Treaty Commission Act, reported complete without amendment to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.
Hon. M. Sihota moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 6:58 p.m.
The House in Committee of Supply A; W. Hartley in the chair.
The Committee met at 2:51 p.m.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT, LANDS AND PARKS
(continued)
On vote 32: minister's office, $375,354 (continued).
C. Serwa: I'd like to continue from where we left off. Having had the opportunity to read Hansard and the Blues prompts a few more questions with respect to aboriginal rights and hunting and fishing in British Columbia. I think it's abundantly clear to all of us here that the aboriginal people have always had inherent or traditional rights, but also rights equal to the rights of all British Columbians, to access wildlife and the fishery resource in the province. So the question here and in the court cases we discussed earlier has absolutely nothing to do with rights.
The question, it is clear, has something to do with the restriction or reservation on those rights. As we and the minister talk back and forth here in questions on the minister's estimates, we find -- since the question of rights is not the paramount issue -- that it appears the issue is perhaps one of unregulated rights being sought. And if we're hearing the leading edge of the unregulated rights being sought, then it is clear that any influence the Ministry of Environment would have over the aboriginal people is non-existent -- going along with the government's interpretation of the Delgam Uukw and Sparrow court cases.
When we listen to the responses from the minister it appears that the minister believes the Ministry of Environment, through the fish and game branch, has some influence in the regulation of aboriginal hunting and fishing. We've heard the minister say we will certainly not allow the commercial involvement of the aboriginal people. But the minister, I know, is also aware that if you go back into time immemorial, as the expression goes, you will find that commercial endeavours were part and parcel of all aboriginal groups in the province, as in any other area of North America. There was trading from the coast, with the oolichan grease being conveyed through trails into the interior and traded for other commodities they were short of on the coast. The commercial utilization was also traditional.
My concern is the knowledge that what we're talking about is unregulated rights, with no one having any ability to restrain or constrain those particular rights. How does the minister stand up in the course of these estimates and defend a position of thinking that we can expand some of the opportunities for the aboriginal population and then constrain them? I can see commercial ventures and rights being taken, not being sought, by the aboriginal people in the matter of guiding for steelhead in B.C. rivers, for instance, or of simply taking hunters out without bothering to undertake the regulations of the guiding licence. Commensurate with the type of interpretation the minister has made of the two court decisions that I've indicated, that has
[ Page 6513 ]
flavoured -- and I say flavoured -- the government's position in this matter.
We see the leading edge of this very important concern to the people of B.C. How does the minister respond, in the belief -- and I think it's a mistaken belief -- that he, the ministry or the government will have some influence over the unregulated rights of the aboriginal people in this province?
Hon. J. Cashore: The government, as I have said many times in this debate, has responded to court decisions, and it has responded appropriately, to set forward a process that is clearly spelled out in the interim guidelines.
C. Serwa: The answer was a non-answer. The people of British Columbia deserve a better response from the Minister of Environment than that short, terse statement which said absolutely nothing. This is a major question, a major issue involving a large number of British Columbians. We're talking about regulation of one part of British Columbia's population and absolutely no opportunity to influence or regulate another approximately 3 or 3.5 percent of the population. That is the question. The answer to that question is something that the people have a right to expect from this Minister of Environment. Perhaps the minister would want to expand on his short, terse statement.
Hon. J. Cashore: There are not unregulated rights; they're all subject to the rule of law.
C. Serwa: The rule of law has not been changed. The rule of law in the province is being dispensed in a different manner to one set of British Columbians than it is to another set. I might add that it is illegal for the government to take the law and arbitrarily make a decision to treat one class or group of British Columbians differently from another group or class of British Columbians. From my perspective, the government is breaking the law at the present time.
The main question is: how can the rule of law apply to this traditional, recognized right -- that the government has implied they will recognize -- which is completely unregulated? The government will not be able to regulate -- nor, from the government's own interpretation, do they have any right to regulate or constrict in any way, shape or form -- any hunting or fishing involving aboriginal people. That is the issue, and it has nothing to do with the rule of law, because from the government's own position, they have no influence. They can negotiate, but what are they negotiating? They're negotiating from no basis whatsoever -- again, from the government's own interpretation.
Hon. J. Cashore: It's not correct to say that it's not regulated. The hon. member refers to court decisions as not having impacted the rule of law. I disagree on that point. It's my understanding that the rule of law is affected by the making of laws by Parliament, and by the decisions by the courts with regard to the carrying out of the law.
C. Serwa: I guess this is a very interesting topic, and the minister finds it prudent to be very evasive. The reality is that not one bit of legislation in the Ministry of Environment has been changed to allow this. There are certainly policy latitudes, but when we're talking about the rule of law, we're looking specifically at the regulations and the legislation which govern and control hunting and fishing in British Columbia. They have not changed. We're using the rule of law and applying it differently to different people -- and that's clear.
[3:00]
Hon. J. Cashore: Regulations are pursuant to the Wildlife Act. The interim guidelines are in effect while we go through the consultation and the experience of the next several months, and they will be brought forward in the form of permanent regulations in January. We've canvassed all this before.
C. Serwa: Perhaps the minister will enlighten me on how he proposes to enforce any breach of any regulations that are modified or drafted in negotiations between the government and the aboriginal peoples. How does he propose to enforce these regulations, when, in fact, you're talking about historical rights of the aboriginal people?
Hon. J. Cashore: We will enforce subject to the powers that are within the act, and subsequent to that we have regulations and we also have guidelines. To be hypothetical, if a situation were to develop where an amendment to the law was required, that would seriously be considered.
C. Serwa: It seems to be an area that has not received a great deal of thought from the minister and the ministry. As you delve into this particular topic, it expands and grows. The reality is that in moving these steps, in trying to comply or appease, the minister has done nothing but raise unrealistic expectations among the aboriginal people. The minister very soon is going to be impacted by a growing realization of the aboriginal people that there is no regulation enforceable by this government on the activities of the aboriginal people, and they can do what they please -- whether it's for the commercial utilization of fish and wildlife or for sustenance of the native peoples. The reality is that the direction the minister and the government have gone has removed any ability of the province to regulate aboriginal peoples. You will find that the steps will be incremental, but they will continue and then, in a very short period of time, there will arise throughout British Columbia more and more conflicts as the minister and the Ministry of Environment try to appease both the aboriginal population and the other population of the province, because the tack they've taken is unrealistic and unrealizable.
Hon. J. Cashore: Hon. Chair, I'd just like to point out that if the hon. member reads the comments in the Blues and in Hansard that his colleague the Social Credit leader made, he'll find that the statements he just made
[ Page 6514 ]
are diametrically opposed to those statements. I can quote verbatim from the Blues that he commends us for the steps we have taken, and he expresses caution, realizing that it is a very difficult situation. He certainly recognizes how challenging and difficult the situation is, and that the government is taking the appropriate steps. I think he's agreeing that the coming several months are going to be very important in seeing how this situation emerges.
C. Serwa: I feel very confident that the minister has put a lot of words into the dialogue of the Leader of the Third Party. I recognize that the Leader of the Third Party is very positive about working toward resolution, but not by creating more potential for conflict. So while our leader applauds efforts to bring the aboriginal and non-aboriginal people to a place where there are mutually compatible considerations, I think we are certainly not going to achieve that by increasing the opportunities for conflict. I would suggest that that is precisely where we are going, and I think that in the fullness of time British Columbians, including the Minister of Environment, will be acutely aware of what is transpiring.
W. Hurd: Hon. Chair, I have a series of questions for the minister about the ongoing spotted owl recovery program. I believe that 15 sites have been designated as spotted owl protection or management areas. Because there is a great deal of confusion in some of the timber supply areas in the province, I wonder what type of process we are dealing with here. Could the minister describe exactly, to the best of his knowledge, the planning process and how local communities are involved in developing a set of guidelines for a specific spotted owl recovery area?
Hon. J. Cashore: As the member knows, there is a spotted owl recovery team. It was established in 1990 to develop a recovery plan for this species. It has representatives from the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, the Ministry of Forests, academia and the forest industry. There will be representation from a non-governmental environmental organization. The long-term strategy is to outline recovery options. This report will take into consideration associated biological and socioeconomic assessments. It will be presented to government when it is ready, hopefully within the next few months.
It is recognized that there are a total of 22 approved cutting areas at the present time that are known to have spotted owl activity in them. So those are being watched very carefully. There is ongoing discussion between the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks and the Ministry of Forests, and we are looking forward to being able to take the work that is presently underway, where there are surveys in the areas of immediate concern. We are having a joint Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks and Ministry of Forests team review each of these situations. When these surveys are completed, we expect that we will have further ongoing input at that time. In the meantime, we are looking forward to the work of the spotted owl recovery team.
The hon. member asked how the public was having input. I'll try to get more specific information on that, but it is my understanding that they have input directly to the spotted owl recovery team.
W. Hurd: Can the minister confirm that as an interim guideline, areas of spotted owl activity amount to some 3,200 or so hectares of forest land surrounding those identified sites? The reason I ask the question is a concern that seems to be building that these interim guidelines, which, in essence, amount to walling off access to timber by some forest products companies, have an indefinite time frame to them. Are we dealing with a situation where the guidelines are being developed within the ministry and then presented to the spotted owl recovery groups in the various regions? Or are we dealing with a situation where those recovery groups are identifying the appropriate amount of land base to be preserved or protected from any other type of competing activity, and making those recommendations to the ministry? Are we seeing a top-down approach to delineating areas of preservation, or is it totally driven by the consultative study groups?
Hon. J. Cashore: In the interim we are attempting to avoid those areas that are contentious. The figure that the hon. member mentioned is correct in terms of an assessment from a wildlife biologist perspective of the amount of area that is required. In terms of whether it's top down or bottom up, I think I would have to say that we're hoping here for a process that is cognizant of the importance of the input coming from the people who are out there in the field -- environmentalists, workers -- but a process that also recognizes the importance of expertise in the wildlife biology area, and one that recognizes the socioeconomic factors that have to be considered here.
As challenging as this situation is, it is nest-specific and therefore a much more appropriate approach than that which we see tying up vast areas south of the 49th parallel.
W. Hurd: Perhaps I can be a little more specific. The minister will be aware of the concerns being expressed in Squamish about the spotted owl recovery team at work in the Soo timber supply area, specifically the concern that the ministry presented a set of interim guidelines to the committee, which had not been meeting on a regular basis -- at least, that's what the opposition has been advised in that particular case. The reason I raise the question is that in the adjacent timber supply area -- the Fraser -- there seemed to be a consultative approach that worked. In the Soo there was an impression, on the part of people with experience in both timber supply areas, that the interim guidelines had simply been presented by the ministry as a sort of fait accompli. In view of the fact that we're dealing with 15 of these delineated areas throughout the province, I wonder whether we're dealing with a policy decision that's being made by the ministry to try to establish what kind of areas of preservation we're
[ Page 6515 ]
dealing with to create habitat for the spotted owl. Are we looking at a change in policy here, or are the impressions that people are gaining in Squamish of the process there an accurate reflection of what's been happening?
Hon. J. Cashore: Depending on the information that comes in, the decision may.... We don't know yet what the decision will be with regard to the amount of land that should be set aside. There's a lot of data that needs to come in. There's a lot of work being done with regard to building on the body of information that's available in the science of wildlife biology. At this time it's too early to say how much land would be set aside. We're trying to keep the options open until we have that information available to us, so that we can make the best possible decision -- one that takes into account the concern about an endangered species, but also the socioeconomic concerns. Obviously this is a very difficult and challenging situation. While we recognize the urgency of it, we also find that good decision-making is not done in a panic. We need to enable this process to fully run its course so that we can come up with the kind of area of protection that is appropriate.
[3:15]
W. Hurd: I confess to being somewhat baffled by that answer from the minister. I have "Interim Management Guidelines for the Northern Spotted Owl in British Columbia," issued by the B.C. Environment ministry, February 8, 1993. The document clearly indicates that the U.S. spotted owl recovery team had identified a figure of 3,200 hectares for preservation, which roughly approximates the work of the Canadian spotted owl recovery team. I guess the question is pretty simple. If the minister is determined to preserve options for the future, would it not be reasonable for this committee to assume that the 15 areas so designated in the province will carry -- as a bare minimum -- 3,200 hectares of protected areas or areas of preservation around them, merely to preserve the kinds of options that the minister talked about in his previous answer?
Hon. J. Cashore: No, I don't think that any assumptions should be made until all of the data is in.
W. Hurd: Can the minister tell us whether -- in the case of the Fraser and Soo timber supply areas, which I understand are the furthest along -- the area of preservation is going to be 3,200 hectares for each spotted owl recovery area? Would it be less or more, or are we dealing with zero hectares here until such time as the committee brings in its recommendations? I think the concern being expressed here is that, in the absence of any concrete decision, you're dealing with walling off X percent of a land base for what amounts to an indefinite period of time. Can the minister give us any idea -- for example, in the Fraser or Soo timber supply areas -- of how much land at this particular point is off-limits because of the northern spotted owl?
Hon. J. Cashore: There's some logging going on now in some of those areas. We are trying to inventory the area to get the best available data we possibly can, but at present some logging is going on in some of those areas.
D. Mitchell: On this issue of the spotted owl I'd like to get some further clarification from the minister, because I too, like the member for Surrey-White Rock, am a bit confused by the minister's answers.
The interim management guidelines issued by his ministry apparently are effective to December 31, 1993. Can the minister tell us the status of these interim management guidelines? Are they still at a draft stage? Are they now in effect? What consultation with the public or his colleague in the Ministry of Forests has taken place with respect to these guidelines?
Hon. J. Cashore: They're in a draft stage.
D. Mitchell: The minister says to the committee that these are in a draft stage, and he also says he doesn't want to make any assumptions. But the truth is that these draft interim management guidelines do make assumptions. In fact, there are maps in this document where lines are drawn for proposed protected areas for the northern spotted owl. As a result of these draft interim guidelines, harvesting activities in the Soo forest district are being curtailed right now. Management and working plans for various licensees are being denied approval on the basis of these draft interim management guidelines. Clearly, assumptions are being made.
I wonder if the minister understands how powerful his own ministry is, and his own strength. When his ministry issues such guidelines they have a dramatic effect on employment in the working forest of British Columbia -- particularly in the area I represent, communities like Squamish or the Pemberton Valley. These draft guidelines have had a tremendous effect already. Does the minister realize his own strength?
Hon. J. Cashore: At this point we don't have an answer to the question as to whether logging is going on in the Soo -- the area you refer to -- or if it is, to what extent. So we will get that answer for you and bring it back.
With regard to protection, I should point out that in areas identified as protected-areas strategy study areas, of course, no harvesting is going on.
D. Mitchell: The problem we have in the working forests of British Columbia is that -- with the protected-areas strategy, with a variety of other areas of the working forest being deleted, and now with the spotted owl conservation areas being proposed -- we're quickly getting to the point in some timber supply areas where more than 100 percent of the timber base is being preserved. That doesn't leave a lot of room for a viable forest industry.
One of the concerns we see is the relationship between this minister's ministry and the Ministry of Forests. I'm wondering about the coordination -- or the
[ Page 6516 ]
apparent lack of coordination, perhaps -- that is taking place right now, leading toward the development in the area I represent of a new Soo Coalition for Sustainable Forests. We are seeing the same thing in the Chilliwack area, in the Fraser area and in areas that are being potentially affected by the spotted owl. Does the minister have any kind of coordinated strategy with his colleague the Minister of Forests? Who is trying to stand up for the jobs that are being threatened by these conservation areas that are being established?
Hon. J. Cashore: As I explained earlier, the spotted owl recovery team involves the coordination of the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks and the Ministry of Forests. I can also tell the hon. member that the Minister of Forests and I are in frequent discussion with regard to this issue. There is a concern about jobs, as I have expressed, and there is a concern about an endangered species with regard to the biodiversity values of the environment. You can correct me if I am wrong, but I understand, for the record, that all parties represented in this Legislature have those concerns on both sides of that issue: for biodiversity and also for the economy and for jobs.
I think all of us recognize that we need to be finding ways to achieve value-added, etc., etc. But in the present circumstance, this is a very difficult issue. I think that's very consistent with what my colleague the Minister of Forests has said, and it's an issue that we are addressing through this coordinated process. We have this spotted owl recovery team process underway, and we're looking forward to the results of the inventory that's going on; but not all of the data is available at the present time, and we still need to address that. As I said before, we will get information to you with regard to the status quo in the area you describe as the Soo.
I would also point out that as well as the coordination that's going on between the Ministry of Forests and the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks vis-�-vis the spotted owl recovery team, there is the very extensive coordination that goes on in the protected-areas strategy. Then there is the whole area of work that's being done within government that has to do with biodiversity. To mention one example -- while this is future policy, hon. Chair -- the Minister of Forests has indicated that next year he will be bringing in a forest practices code.
D. Mitchell: Before we leave this topic, I'd just like to ask the minister one more question on the subject of the spotted owl, because I believe this is a very important issue for the province. All British Columbians want to see an endangered species protected, but we are also very concerned about jobs and the economy. We've seen in the Pacific Northwest -- Washington and Oregon -- thousands of jobs lost because, in my opinion, the issue was not very well managed there. I think there was a knee-jerk reaction. Initially, perhaps larger areas than were required were actually conserved. One estimate suggested that more than 18,000 jobs were lost in forestry-based communities in those two states alone. We don't want to see that kind of a process of job loss in our province, and so we need to see a balanced approach. I believe that the issue of the spotted owl and how the government deals with it is going to be one of the most important issues of how we manage the land base that this government will face. I would hate to see this government mismanage this issue in the way that the Clayoquot Sound issue was handled. If it were handled as poorly, I think it would be the death-knell of this government. So I would ask the minister to please exercise some reason on this.
If he's interested in the status quo, the status quo includes working forestry-based communities, such as Squamish and Pemberton, where jobs are being threatened right now, where harvesting activities for next year are not being approved, because of these proposed conservation areas that his ministry has established. I'd like to ask the minister now if he would consider setting aside the guidelines, which he states are just in a draft stage. Would it not make sense to simply set these aside for now, as far as the direct economic impact they're having on the working forest is concerned, and instead, conduct a comprehensive review that includes the socioeconomic impact of these conservation areas and involves communities, municipalities, workers, unions and others in a process of genuine consultation before we lose jobs? In British Columbia we could actually look toward protecting an endangered species not by getting rid of jobs first, but by taking a look at how we can preserve jobs and not being desperate or anxious to conserve huge areas of land by drawing lines on maps around huge areas of the province that are going to affect jobs today. Isn't there some way that we can set these guidelines aside while the study is being done, so that work can be completed, and workers, families and communities can continue until we get the best scientific data possible on how we can preserve this endangered species in British Columbia?
Hon. J. Cashore: We are gathering scientific data. We are managing this in a very careful way that is cognizant of the environmental and socioeconomic factors. As all of this comes together in the protected-areas strategy and the land use plan for the province, those socioeconomic factors are being considered and are very prominent in those deliberations, which are forthcoming. The procedure we have outlined is an appropriate procedure, and we are looking forward to the results of the surveys that are now underway.
W. Hurd: I have a few questions on the spotted owl recovery process, referring specifically to one section of the interim guidelines, which suggests that 17 of 27 active spotted owl sites in the province are threatened by imminent timber harvesting. That implies that these lands would otherwise be subject to harvesting activity within the next year or two. Can the minister tell us how the spotted owl recovery areas dovetail with the protected-areas strategy? It would appear that we're dealing with two different land areas in each timber supply area in the province, and the cumulative effect of both the protected-areas strategy and the spotted owl recovery areas could result in timber supply reductions of 30 to 40 percent in the province of British Columbia.
[3:30]
[ Page 6517 ]
I'm just wondering if the minister understands that when you're dealing with a resource-based community, you have to make investments in machinery and equipment for roadbuilding and such, which require you to make five- or ten-year financial commitments. In fact people simply can't justify making these kinds of investments, and a great deal of uncertainty is being introduced into the process, to the detriment of communities and also of the government, which collects a variety of sales taxes and income taxes on payrolls and such. Can the minister give us any idea of whether the total reduction in the land base is being computed in his deliberations with the Ministry of Forests, when they identify areas like the protected-areas strategy and the 17 of 27 active spotted owl sites in the province? Clearly the lack of understanding on the part of the industry and the lack of appreciation for what is off-limits and what is available is having a crippling impact on the ability of communities like Squamish and others to plan their economic future.
Hon. J. Cashore: Some of the sites are in protected areas, and some are not. One of the reasons that they weren't all put into protected areas for study was precisely that the point is correct: it would have tied up all the areas where there's the economic consideration. Therefore we still need to have the data in before we're able to make the final decision with regard to areas that are outside the protected-areas strategy study areas.
W. Hurd: Perhaps I can ask a specific question. Loggers and community leaders in Chilliwack and Squamish are saying that the cumulative effect of the protected-areas strategy and the spotted owl recovery areas, before we even consider the reductions in the annual allowable cut by the chief forester, will be to reduce the timber supply in those two timber supply areas -- the Fraser and the Soo -- by 40 percent. Does the minister accept that that's going to happen, and is that the price of good public policy?
Hon. J. Cashore: Hon. Chair, I don't accept any figure whatsoever at the present time. We are waiting for scientific data to come in. At that time we will be able to look at that on the basis of the accumulated data that comes in through the process that is underway.
D. Mitchell: As for the scientific data the minister refers to, could the minister tell this committee whether or not his ministry and the recovery team are using or referring to any of the data collected by our neighbours to the south in Washington and Oregon? Presumably all the work and trauma that has been gone through in those states must be of some benefit to us. Our concern in this committee is that we don't make the same mistakes. We don't need to have the same economic disaster in our province as a result of our efforts to save an endangered species. Perhaps we can learn from their mistakes.
Can the minister tell us when this data is expected to be completed and delivered? When will the work be completed? When will the data be in hand? If that's going to be some time off, that's fine. But in the meantime, can we set aside these guidelines while that's taking place?
Hon. J. Cashore: With regard to the data from the experience down south, I would point out two things. As I said before, as challenging as this issue is, the approach that we've taken is site specific -- not generic as it is in the United States, where huge tracts are set aside. Also, with regard to the very good point that information has been accumulated on the experience there, first of all, we have a number of wildlife biologists within the ministry who are professionals; they keep up with the available literature. With regard to a specific program that is going on, as a one-off program which takes into account what comes out of that experience south of the border, I would have to be advised on that by officials. I do know that staff in the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks and in the Ministry of Forests are very cognizant of the situation there. They attend conferences back and forth across the border and are aware of the literature.
D. Mitchell: When will it be completed?
Hon. J. Cashore: We're expecting to have the data by the end of June, and there should be a report to cabinet some time in the fall, which will result in decision-making around that.
J. Tyabji: Hon. Chair, I'd like to change the focus and move to something completely different, and that's the state-of-the-environment report. I'd like to start with the atmospheric section, basically the way it's laid out.
Before we get into that, I find that there's a flaw in the premises that the report was based on. There are four fundamental questions that have directed the study and the conclusions it has come to: what is happening in the environment, why is it happening, why is it significant, and what are we doing about it? The question that I think is missing is: what are the options that we're faced with all the time? That's why, in looking at the state-of-the-environment report, which I think is an excellent starting point, without that premise we are really left with a key ingredient missing. In some of the options that are being explored -- for example, in the area of forestry that we have talked about before -- we know that there is a crisis on both the economic side and the environmental side, but the solutions to that crisis are with us now. We do know what the options are, and I don't see them being discussed -- not in this report or in any of the directions the government is taking. That is unfortunate.
That being said, if we could move to the atmospheric section, what I'd like to discuss is something many of us have probably come to terms with, to some extent, over the weekend, and that is the continued problems we're going to have with increased ultraviolet radiation because of the thinning of the ozone layer. As the minister will remember, last year we spent a lot of time on the ozone layer and on some of the actions the
[ Page 6518 ]
government could take, both internally in terms of the educational infrastructure and externally in terms of lobbying the federal government for an international protocol to prevent continued depletion. In fact, I haven't seen a lot of evidence that this is happening.
I know that last year the minister talked a little bit about the Ecosaurus and the educational program for Environment through the elementary schools. At that time I urged the minister, and I urge him again very strongly, that the focus should be to a large extent on health and on things like eyesight -- continued degradation of human eyesight through ultraviolet radiation -- and people not knowing the potential problems that are out there. In terms of marketing eyewear, there are some things on the market that make the problem much worse, and people aren't aware of that. That's something that I think the government can easily take care of through the school system with a simple handout, as I said last year. We know that there is increased awareness through the media of some of the potential problems with sunscreens.
I think we have to talk about the Environment ministry dealing with the Education ministry, as we talked about last year, and some of the joint initiatives that are underway perhaps branching out a little bit to recognize that as we head into record depletions of the ozone layer over Canada, as outlined in the latest report from NASA -- and I don't know if the minister has a copy -- of April 22, 1993.... It seems that every year we are faced with new scientific data stating that the previous scientific data underestimated what next year's levels would be. Sure enough, this year we again have more admissions that last year's estimates weren't on target. Here are this year's estimates, which are worse than last year's projections, and I expect that next year we'll get a handout saying that this year's were worse than what they predicted -- and so it goes.
Basically, I would like to ask the minister if he is aware of the current problems that we have in the environment with increased ultraviolet radiation. Last year we talked about the joint initiatives between the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Environment. What has happened in the last year on that front? Also, are there any initiatives with the Ministry of Agriculture to bring the international findings on ultraviolet radiation in crops and food production into the Ministry of Environment? The reason that is particularly important is that in our last discussion we talked about forestry yields and the regeneration of the forest -- which falls under Lands and Parks -- and we know now, through the international studies that have come forward on forest regeneration, that depletion of the ozone layer is having a significant impact on that.
These are the areas I would like to canvass in terms of what this ministry is doing.
Hon. J. Cashore: First of all, with regard to the state-of-the-environment report, the hon. member referred to the four fundamental questions, and then said there was a flaw -- if I understood correctly -- because there wasn't a fifth question: what are the options? The state-of-the-environment report never purported to be a textbook with regard to spelling out the options. It is a snapshot of conditions, and therefore it fits into that category of information which is put forward without any kind of small-p or even a large-P political message. It's put out there as factual data. Therefore, the very valid question the hon. member raises -- which I think is an important question, and I affirm it -- is not appropriately a part of that document, but it is appropriately a part of the work of both government and opposition: to be engaging in taking the data we have available to us and identifying what we consider to be the options. That point is well taken -- that we need to be addressing the options once we have the factual information in front of us.
With regard to the state-of-the-environment report, I believe it's about 120 pages. You could probably take a dozen of the topics that are visited in that paper and have a state-of-the-environment report that's 120 pages on any one of them, and you'd still have a long way to go. It is a beginning. It is not perfect, but I think it's really a very worthwhile beginning, and I am very pleased with the effort that went into it by Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks staff as well as staff of Environment Canada.
What are the options? The government program that we are following in order to address the question of options is the clean air strategy, and of course, ozone depletion is one of the factors within that strategy. I know that the hon. member is aware that we brought in a regulation -- I think it was in March -- with regard to ozone-depleting substances. It has been recognized by the atmospheric group in the B.C. Environmental Network as being a good regulation. I realize that they say "as far as it goes," and I know that they are saying to government that they would like to see us doing more in the field of education, but at the same time I should put on the record that the regulation we have put in place is a very strong regulation. I know that it's probably not useful to compare it with other provinces, but the information that I have from my staff is that....
J. Tyabji: Yours is bigger than theirs.
Hon. J. Cashore: Yes, it's the strongest regulation in Canada; I think that can be borne out.
Another thing that is very good about it, from an educational point of view, is that virtually all of the stakeholder groups in British Columbia were on board with that regulation -- including the automobile dealers, the people in the refrigeration industry who service air conditioners, an industry in British Columbia that is developing technology for the recycling of ozone-depleting substances, and so forth. So that's a very worthwhile thing.
But again, that does not take away from the very valid point that you were making, hon. member, about the importance of education with regard to health. We've been working with the Ministry of Health on this. There will be a report -- referred to as "The Health File" -- coming out in a week or so from the Ministry of Health. There has been input into that from the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, and it is dealing with it as a health issue.
[3:45]
[ Page 6519 ]
Are we aware of the concerns that Mr. Bruce Torrie has been drawing to our attention? Yes. As a matter of fact, we made office space available to him in the ministry for two or three weeks. He has had an opportunity to work with staff within the ministry, and I've met with him most recently at the meeting of the B.C. Environmental Network. While we agree that there is a need for education, his perspective is that, given the concern over the urgency of the situation, there needs to be a considerably higher degree of alarm in addressing this. We are not of that opinion at this present time. We think we need to take a low-key educational approach, but one which recognizes, first of all, that Canada is a world leader in pursuing the phaseout of CFCs.
This is just to get back to a point that I was making a little while ago: when it comes to the production and the end use of CFCs, the federal government is responsible for regulating the production, or the cradle, and the provincial government is responsible for regulating the end use, or the grave. But Environment Canada has increased its network of stations monitoring ultraviolet radiation, and this includes the station at Saturna Island. Environment Canada issues a weekly ozone advisory, which is being tracked by air resources branch staff and will be distributed to Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks regional offices. In 1992, Environment Canada introduced the ultraviolet index as part of the daily forecast available on radio and television and in the newspaper. So there are those ongoing processes of reporting. All of you who listened to the CBC Radio morning program last week were hearing some very good public information with regard to ways in which the public can seek to protect themselves, and especially children, given this concern and the scientific information available. Also, the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks is going to come forward quite soon with a brochure on stratospheric ozone.
J. Tyabji: I agree that alarm is not productive at all. I think there is some room to move in terms of concern, though. I'm really happy to hear that the Health File will be coming out in one week and that the Ministry of Environment had some input into that. I'm also very encouraged to hear that there will be a brochure on stratospheric ozone. I hope that sometime next year we will see a little more attention focused.... People are very aware right now of the potential danger of the skin cancer aspect, and they're starting to be aware of the different products.
Where I think public concern could use a little assistance is with regard to eyewear, particularly for children. I don't think people are aware yet of the potential damage to children's eyes. As a mother of small children, I myself know there aren't even enough products on the market, because people aren't aware enough yet to produce the market for them. If a strategy comes forward from the government -- through whichever ministry -- to educate the public on that, I'd be very interested to hear about it, because I think that's long overdue -- and not in terms of alarming people, but just informing them about some of the potential problems.
With regard to the state-of-the-environment report, I will defer to the Environment critic for the Social Credit caucus.
C. Serwa: Just one or two short questions with respect to the ozone-depleting substances regulation. I think we all applaud the regulations and frankly applaud the government for bringing this initiative forward. It's something I was well aware of, and I think, something the ministry has been working on for a number of years. So it's nice to see it here.
The one concern I have is the enforcement of the regulations. While the regulations give one a substantial degree of comfort that we're doing something about it, the reality is that out in the field there is a great deal of concern with respect to the level playing field, if you wish, regarding enforcement. Large firms and organizations, Canadian Tire being an example, participate in reconditioning air-conditioning equipment -- automotive air-conditioning equipment, for example. They are competing with smaller firms and independent individuals, and the odds are that the enforcement-compliance load is heavier on those firms. Fundamentally, it really means that there's a great deal of difference in the competitiveness of their quotes for certain types of work. They must comply with the regulations, as they should -- they have no difficulty with that. But the problem is perhaps with the lack of enforcement staff and the number of individuals involved in the field. It makes it untenable to be put in that situation. So perhaps the minister can advise us if steps are being taken to address that particular situation. The reality is, I think, that we're all in agreement that the regulations are in fact good, and that they must be universally enforced throughout the province.
Hon. J. Cashore: The hon. member makes a good point. I think that we could always use more investigative personnel with regard to monitoring and enforcement. As I've said before, we need an array of measures that will result in environmental protection, including monitoring and enforcement, but also recognizing that apportioned use of a carrot rather than a stick is a good way to go. That's one of the reasons why it was so worthwhile that such a thorough consultation with stakeholders was part and parcel of this regulation coming forward.
However, in direct answer to the question, Treasury Board has approved two and a half full-time employees to enable us to carry out our additional responsibilities with regard to monitoring and enforcing the CFC regulation. So given the numbers of staff that had been available in the Ministry of Environment for so many years, I am very pleased to say that we have been able to acquire two and a half more full-time employees to work directly on this issue.
C. Serwa: Certainly we are all aware of the magnitude of the challenge not only in the automotive industry but obviously in refrigeration throughout industry -- whether it's home appliances or commercial applications. I'm pleased there has been
[ Page 6520 ]
some accommodation, with two and a half full-time equivalents being perhaps a positive and progressive step; but when you look at the size of British Columbia and the diversity and magnitude of the challenge, it hardly appears adequate. Would the minister consider utilizing for the summer period -- with respect to the servicing of automotive refrigeration units and air conditioners -- applied science students from universities or engineering technology students, for example, who would have the technical qualifications and who could use the summer employment? If we made the attempt this summer, we could blanket all of British Columbia to get everyone aware that the regulations are meant to be enforced, and certainly not meant simply as a placebo. Utilizing that and funding opportunities that the ministry would have through other government resources, we could cover the area more extensively and get everyone on the right foot.
The other thing is: does the individual servicing, say, automobile air conditioners have anything to lose for non-compliance? Are they required to be registered as a serviceperson in order to work on air-conditioning equipment? Do they have to be certified by government? Will enforcement cause them to lose anything? Or can they continue to work more or less with impunity -- although I suppose there are fines if you catch them?
Hon. J. Cashore: There is a compulsory training program. I believe it is available through institutions, such as BCIT, where we chose to announce the regulation. It's a one-day program. I don't want to make it sound as though it's a full semester course or anything like that. I don't have the answer at the present time as to whether or not they get a certificate, but they are required to take that training.
J. Tyabji: If we can move back to the state-of-the-environment report, I'd like to go through it starting from page 1. When we were talking about the four fundamental questions, I'd mentioned the fifth one: what are the options? The minister said at that point that this was not meant to be a textbook but a snapshot with factual data. Maybe I wasn't making my perspective clear, but one of the most valuable parts of this report is actually the references section where, if we want more data, we can look at the bibliography and at the sources that have been used. This is a good starting point. I think it would have been very useful to have a summary or an appendix to each section of some of the options or the ideas -- for example, equal forestry practices, the working-forest concept, alternative methods of regeneration. I'm sure the minister's office has access to these kinds of things, because they are coming to my office -- if they are coming to my office, they must be coming to the minister's as well. We will canvass some of those specific proposals later on in the estimates, but what I was getting at here.... As the minister has pointed out, yes, every section could be a book unto itself; but it would be very useful for people to have a fingertip reference to some of the things that are before us as potential options for solving some of the very important problems in front of us.
In addition to that, when the minister said that this is not a textbook, I take issue with that. I think this should be a textbook. I think that we should have available to our students some of the information that's in here. The maps are excellent. The layout is very good. It's very easy to read, and some of the very basic thoughts are laid out in here. From my own experience with the general public, there's not a lot of awareness, for example, of the consumption patterns of the developed world as opposed to the developing world, and this is laid out very nicely and put in the context of British Columbia. This is the first time I've seen some of the facts that are always tossed around globally and federally put into a B.C. context. I would encourage the ministry to make this available to as many classrooms as possible, because nothing could be more useful than to have a locally based reference that puts everything into context.
Hon. J. Cashore: I'm trying to get some data on the number we had printed. I think we had 12,000 printed and are planning another 15,000. I think the suggestions the hon. member is making are ones we need to take into consideration for ongoing activity in this area. I don't see a state-of-the-environment report being produced every year, but I think we have to look upon this as a beginning of a process where we need to be updating and, perhaps on a yearly basis, targeting one particular area. I'm not worried about the issue about it being a textbook or not. I was simply saying that it wasn't a textbook in the sense of carrying the full issue from the data to the solutions. That, in a sense, is for the next phase of how all of us respond to the data.
[4:00]
With regard to the classroom, one of the things that was quite a delightful experience for me was the day we launched the state-of-the-environment report. I went out to Mount Doug High School and met with the geography class there, who stayed after class. We had embargoed copies of this report for them the week before, so that they could ask me incisive questions.
J. Tyabji: Did you have any answers?
Hon. J. Cashore: Yes, I did have some answers. I found that it was really something to see the way in which those students were making use of this book -- in the way in which it was intended. They were giving a critique. They were commenting on those things they thought were going well and those things not going well, and where we're really facing a lot of tough decisions and urgent need. It was very heartening for me to see those students and to realize the sophistication with which they were able to address that issue -- and the fact that they would give the time to it that they did, in that focused and well-thought-out way. It was also interesting that they had a panel of six speakers who spoke on behalf of little teams they had set up to work on different sections of the book, and each of those teams had independently chosen a young woman to lead their group and to present their....
J. Tyabji: They can be the best questioners.
[ Page 6521 ]
Hon. J. Cashore: Well, they certainly asked very good questions. As for the question of whether I had all the answers, I'd have to say no, I didn't have all the answers. But we had a good dialogue.
I think that the point about making this available to the classroom is absolutely right. I have suggested to staff that we find ways of approaching the Teachers' Federation for in-service training opportunities and that sort of thing so that we can make use of every opportunity to get this into the hands of children. There are also the public libraries, universities and colleges. I am hoping that in my role I'll be able to help raise the profile of this by visiting a number of these institutions as I travel around the province.
J. Tyabji: All of the options that the minister is listing sound very encouraging. I hope there is more of a formal process. Maybe the minister would talk with the Minister of Education in terms of an educational program in conjunction with the Minister of Health -- or however the cabinet designs its interministerial committees -- to pursue some of the educational options he outlined in a little more formal way.
For the record, if the minister misunderstood me, I'm not by any stretch of the imagination advocating an annual publication of this type. I think this is an excellent starting point. I don't think we have the resources to continually publish the same thing over again. However, an annual update of some sections of this would be very handy, particularly as we canvassed ozone a little earlier. I think we are going to find very necessary data coming up every year in our forest industry and agriculture industry, in terms of the effects on regeneration of crops, and those crops that are doing well. If we are going to be competitive globally, we will need access to that information.
As for the question that I brought up on what the options are, if the ministry is looking at some kind of publication like that -- perhaps an environmental options publication or a limits-to-growth options publication or even sustainability options for British Columbia -- it might be something to pursue in conjunction with the Ministry of Economic Development. I know that the minister has seen some of the options that I've seen on local economies that are environmentally sustainable and non-depleting in terms of the resource base. That might be something for the future.
Going back to the state-of-the-environment report, I note that on page 3, in the first full paragraph, they are talking about ozone depletion again. We have canvassed that subject specifically. One thing that I find missing from any discussion on ozone depletion is the impact it has on phytoplankton. People don't know that phytoplankton is a primary producer of oxygen on the planet. If we lose phytoplankton, we lose the ability to regenerate our atmosphere. That's missing from there as well, in that there we are talking about crop productivity and cancer rates, which are very important, but we're not talking about eyesight and phytoplankton, which affect us very drastically. As the minister is aware, we have had problems even in the Georgia strait with things like red tide because of pollution that's going into the strait. This is beyond the minister's mandate to deal with, but certainly education can take place, and people can be aware of that. Just for future reference, it's on page 3.
When we get to page 4, they start to talk about consumption and about people being part of the environment, part of the problem and part of the solution. I note that in the last paragraph they talk about positive change, where we see levels of chemical DDT declining in blue heron eggs. The first thing that struck me when I read that was: well, I should hope so, because we haven't used DDT for about 25 years. It has to work its way out of the system at some point. I would be interested to see if we've seen an increase in the absorption of dioxins by the same species, so that we're not just exchanging pollutants. It used to be DDT, and that's going. Now we have, for example, dioxins showing up in human tissue and even in mother's milk. That is something that is missing from there. Unfortunately, the positive changes in the environment are really not that encouraging, because they are the very least we can expect.
On page 5 they are talking about ecological limits, and the per capita energy-use figure on the bottom is very interesting in terms of B.C.'s energy consumption being so far above the other jurisdictions that are named. I think we face two problems in B.C. in terms of consumption. One is that the cost of consumption is relatively low -- not that I'm advocating an increase in the cost. The second part is that people are not aware of the downstream environmental impact of high consumption of our energy resources.
Issues that we'll be dealing with later, when we leave the state-of-the-environment report, will be water diversion and the proposal, which is before this ministry and the Ministry of Economic Development, to divert a million cubic metres of the North Thompson south, or the Nechako issue, which we're going to hit later as well, and Alcan's situation. A lot of these issues of consumption of energy can be dealt with by going to the source and by educating the consumer. The stick that could be used would be that we do enjoy extremely low costs, and that if we want to continue to enjoy low costs we have to cut down on consumption. I know that some municipalities are starting to look at water meters as an area that can be monitored for the purposes of educating the public and reducing consumption.
That also applies to figure 1.4 when you talk about energy use by sector. We're talking about industrial use of our energy. The question I have for the minister -- and it's at the top of page 5 -- is: has the ministry had any dealings with some of the industrial users of the energy to find out if one of the reasons that industrial use is so high is because of easy access and low cost? Or do we have industries locating in British Columbia that happen to use more energy and/or water because we happen to have a lot of it? Is it because of oversupply or is it on the consumption end -- and if so, can there be a reduction in consumption? I know that south of the border, where they've run into a brick wall as far as energy and water supplies go, they've actually had a lot of innovation in their industry to move away from that.
[ Page 6522 ]
Has the ministry been following up with industry on that to deal with energy and water consumption?
Hon. J. Cashore: One example would be that Alcan is a huge user of energy, and one of the reasons they're there is because of the relatively cheap access to hydro energy. With regard to discussing with industry this issue of availability or demand, I think there's always a combination of factors there. Some of the issues that the hon. member is addressing are issues that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources is very interested in.
I'm primarily interested in the environmental costs where energy is a factor. Just to give you an example, as you know there's a discussion underway with regard to independent power producers and the whole issue of energy export. On the one hand there's a social concern about the possibility of sending cheap energy south of the line, and therefore enabling the creation of jobs that would compete with the B.C. economy. That needs to be looked at. At the same time look at the environmental costs, say, of a cogeneration plant, just to be hypothetical. If you're resolving three environmental issues at the same time -- the leachate problem, a wood waste problem and an air quality problem because of the beehive burners -- then it would be wise to factor in the environmental values of going that route. So it's very complex, but we have to take a look at the environmental aspects in any of these energy considerations.
J. Tyabji: The question that comes to mind is: does the Ministry of Environment have an official policy with regard to cogeneration plants and the use of wood waste to generate energy?
Hon. J. Cashore: My apologies, I didn't hear that last question.
J. Tyabji: Does the Ministry of Environment have an official policy with regard to cogeneration plants?
Hon. J. Cashore: The government has not yet finalized its position on that with regard to the recommendations of the Energy Council report. The comment I made following the last question was an attempt to give the hon. member my thinking on the issue, while recognizing that a number of factors have to be considered.
J. Tyabji: I'm not sure I understand that. The question that comes to mind -- in light of the discussion on energy consumption, the availability of water and the resulting use of water to produce energy -- is that we also have an abundance of wood waste, on the waste management side of things. We have the ability to use the wood waste to generate electricity, as an alternative to using the water resource for generation. So that's where that's coming from. When does the minister think he would have an answer for that? In my mind, it should be fairly clear what the cost-benefit of cogeneration is.
Hon. J. Cashore: The decision with regard to the timing of such a report on the wood-to-energy process, or cogeneration, would be from B.C. Hydro or the Crown corporations secretariat. The Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks has input into that process, but we are not driving it with regard to when the announcement would be made.
J. Tyabji: Maybe the minister can answer my question within this estimates debate without prejudice to the decision of the other ministries. If this minister had to make a recommendation on wood waste and/or a reduction of the consumption of energy from water resources, which went then to the Energy Council or whatever body it went to, what would the recommendation be to deal with wood waste?
[4:15]
Hon. J. Cashore: I've already answered that, I think, three comments ago, where I said that we have to place environmental values on the development of electricity. For instance, if at one time you were resolving three environmental problems -- the wood waste problem, the leachate problem and a smoke pollution problem -- those factors would have to be factored in in making that decision. But I don't have enough information at this time to say, on the balance of probabilities, that the answer should be that this particular project would go ahead. In terms of my inclination I would want to very carefully review all the data, but it's a little difficult to see, if you value in those three factors, how you wouldn't be emerging with a pretty strong recommendation that would seriously consider a cogeneration plant.
When we talk about cogeneration, let me just add something to that. I know we have a wood waste problem, a leachate problem and an air pollution problem from beehive burners. But it's really something to hear one of our air quality persons, Jim McTaggart-Cowan, talk about the emerging industry in Oregon that now has the problem of not being able to get a sufficient supply of wood waste. That is a non-burning industry making new products out of wood waste. So it's amazing sometimes how something like that can turn things around in a short period of time, and then all of a sudden.... For instance, if that were to happen and you had two or three of these plants on line to get up and running, you might suddenly find that you had the reverse of the problem you had before -- that is, you wouldn't be able to get security of supply. So this has to be planned on a very careful economic analysis of all of its aspects.
Just a few years ago, for instance, we had a much more serious problem with regard to automobile tires. But now more than 80 percent of the tires are being removed from the waste stream and going into much more useful ways of reducing, reusing and recycling.
J. Tyabji: That brings me to the next question, actually, and takes us to page 8 of the State of the Environment Report. I know that when this minister took over as Minister of Environment, he took over from the former Minister of Environment in the Social Credit
[ Page 6523 ]
government. The policy there was that there would be a 50 percent reduction in the landfill by the year 2000, which is commendable. I don't know what the base was.... I don't know what the 100 percent was that he was referring to, and I don't know if we're saying that today we are going to reduce by 50 percent.
Hon. J. Cashore: In 1990.
J. Tyabji: No, my comment was that I don't know what the 100 percent base that he was dealing with was. At the same time that the announcement was made, people were starting to recycle paper in a large way. As the minister is aware, before recycling became something that a lot of people participated in, about 40 percent of the waste stream was paper. So you're very close to the mark when you say a 50 percent reduction just by taking paper, newspaper and cardboard products out of the waste stream. I believe that's by weight or volume; I'm not sure which statistic that is.
The question that I have for the minister right now is something that I've been wondering about, as I've been through the province and in a number of communities. There are some real difficulties with the integrated solid waste management plan for the province, in that some of the communities -- for example, in the Kootenays -- are having problems. There might be three small communities in one regional district, and each community is trying to come up with its own solid waste management plan. They could reduce costs and be much more effective with an infrastructure to do the delivery of service or the pickups. But that's not happening, because there doesn't seem to have been a coordinated effort to manage the different proposals coming forward from each part of the province. That's something that I found extremely curious. Depending on which part of the province you're in, there seems to be a different problem based on the same source: there hasn't been an overall provincial strategy.
I know that this started before this minister became Minister of Environment, but perhaps he could share his thoughts. I think that one reason why a lot of communities were discouraged by their initial recycling efforts was because they started on something, only to have it fall apart because the infrastructure didn't follow through.
[M. Farnworth in the chair.]
Hon. J. Cashore: It's based on 1990 figures and also on a per capita diversion by weight. The hon. member asked if this was by weight or by volume, so it's by weight.
With regard to the communities and regional districts throughout the province and the question of coordination, I would say that the coordination is building effectively. I think it's a two-way stream, and it has to be based on cooperation among the regional districts and municipalities, the provincial government and the other interest groups such as recycling societies, etc. It is true that this province has very unique areas, and wherever you have different communities, different geographies and different economies, you're going to have different circumstances.
We have stories of the success that we find in an area such as Hornby Island or in Gold River where I was the other day, where they are over 65 percent successful in their waste reduction. Then there are other areas where the record is not that good, so we're finding that some situations are working better than others. I also understand the need that's often expressed to me by municipalities and regional districts: "Please understand that our circumstances are different." Their point is well taken, and we're seeking to do that.
Recently I attended a conference in Vancouver that was jointly sponsored by the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks and the Union of B.C. Municipalities, and they were reviewing a number of mutual issues. By promoting that type of event, I think we are going to be much more successful in resolving these things. I do understand that if a particular regional district, in representing its municipalities, is sort of in the heat of the moment and they know they've got to make a decision on a certain program by a certain time, that that often generates a more heated type of response toward ministry officials or whomever it may be. We are hearing that, and we realize the need to continue to improve the consultative work that we're doing.
The good news is that this is happening; that it's underway; that it is coordinated. I fully recognize that this program was underway prior to us becoming government, and I commend the former government for having put it in place. Now that I'm in the position I'm in, I recognize how difficult it is. But I think that there is a lot of public will out there and a lot of political will, and that means we are going to win this one.
J. Tyabji: Further to this -- and I do recognize that it is a slow process; it has been over three years -- I know that there is some integration coming together in some of the regional district areas. It's unfortunate that it hasn't happened sooner.
We have to recognize that Gold River, which you mentioned had a 65 percent reduction, and Hornby Island are communities that historically have been on the leading edge of a lot of waste reduction -- particularly Hornby Island. I believe that the Gold River area is where the compost pilot project is taking place.
First of all, I would like to ask if there is any new ground being broken -- no pun intended -- in terms of what they are doing there that can be used by other communities as an example. Also, is there an initiative underway by the ministry to not only have that pilot project succeed, but to then use that and send it out to other regional districts? I should preface this by saying that I am a big compost advocate, so recognize that I think that that's the missing link in our waste reduction. We should be able to go to 65 percent with no problem and have the economic component of it, because it's an extremely valuable commodity when the community spends the time to create it.
I don't mean to keep going on, but as I say, compost is a big thing with me. I understand that in Gold River they have a
[ Page 6524 ]
problem with their soil, in that they have a granite base and a very light soil, so the compost would be very welcome in adding an agricultural component to the area that hadn't existed.
Hon. J. Cashore: I appreciate that. I don't need to repeat the point that was just made, because it's right on. Gold River has a number of components, and one of them is an incentive to produce soil. I saw the compost works there. The gentleman who designed it is really a visionary. He was boasting that the time to percolate a new pile of compost had been reduced by several months, and it was going directly onto municipal lots where they could plant flowers and that sort of thing. So it's working very effectively.
In terms of reduce, reuse and recycle, and the program to reduce the waste stream by 50 percent by the year 2000, the compost successes are on the leading edge; they are showing the way. For instance, we have Eco the Ecosaurus taking Wiggles the Worm out to the various schools. They are distributing worms to kids, and those kids are having great fun with that.
J. Tyabji: It's not lunch, is it -- the hot food program?
Hon. J. Cashore: That's right. My sister used to say that I used to eat worms when I was a little kid -- maybe that explains a lot of things.
I've been meeting recently with the member for Vancouver Centre -- the Deputy Speaker -- is that the right riding?
The Chair: The Deputy Speaker represents Vancouver-Burrard.
Hon. J. Cashore: Thank you, hon. Chair. We are starting to talk about a program that will look at apartment composters as a pilot project. This is one of the leading areas where we are taking something that is truly valuable.... As you say, hon. member, in places like Gold River it's at a premium, but we could probably say that in virtually any community we need good soil. That's an important part of it. I think you asked another question there, but I didn't write it down.
J. Tyabji: As an add-on to the minister's comments: in the United States, where they have successful composting ventures which are redirecting a lot of the waste from the landfill, they are getting substantial financial rewards. Not only is the market taking on everything they can produce, but the amount of money that they are making from it.... They are getting it from both ends: they are getting paid by the municipality to take the waste away because it saves the municipality money re putting it in the landfill, and they are getting paid by the consumer when they buy the compost. So that goes into the comments about it being valuable. Is this Gold River pilot project going to be distributed to other municipalities and regional districts?
Hon. J. Cashore: Yes, I would say that those of us who have been there and seen it, including the hon. member and I, are evangelists. We go there and see that, and we are able to tell others about it. I think there has been some publicity on that accomplishment, and I think the suggestion is a good one. I would like to say yes, we are working on that -- but now that I've had this question, I'll make sure that we do have that in place. I would expect that there are persons within the ministry who are working on publicizing success stories such as that.
J. Tyabji: A suggestion might be for the minister to send a letter to all the mayors or the chairs of the regional districts, just saying that here's an excellent idea, and if you need more information.... That's the kind of thing I was asking about.
Hon. J. Cashore: Yes, that sort of suggestion is a good one and, as I say, I would expect that we are identifying a number of success stories throughout the province. The one I mentioned a while ago about tires is a enormous success story, and then of course there's Mohawk Oil. So there are various kinds of success stories where there are partnerships among government, business and citizens that are working extremely well and showing the way of the future. I would just add that while I wouldn't want to take in any way away from the people at Gold River and Mayor Fiddick and what they've accomplished, there has been significant provincial government input into that in the form of grants to help do our part in enabling that success.
[4:30]
F. Gingell: Mr. Minister, I wonder if we could just turn our attention away from something that obviously has been a great success to something that's a little bit of a problem -- the proposed Enviro Desorption incinerator in Delta. There have been a series of questions related to the way in which the permit has been issued, and I'm wondering whether you have arrived at the decision now after last week's meeting with members of your ministry staff, both Dr. Wong, I think, and Dorothy Caddell. Has a decision been made yet to withdraw the permit?
Hon. J. Cashore: The council has had a meeting, and we have not yet received any additional information that I can advise the member of at this point.
F. Gingell: Does this mean that if you received information from the municipal council that concerns you and encourages you to either cancel a permit or to delay the process...? Does this mean that all it would take, basically, is a nudge from Delta council to make that happen?
Hon. J. Cashore: That's completely hypothetical and so I'm not able to respond to that question. We have the responsibility to make sure that the permit meets the regulatory standards, and at the present time I understand that it's still within the purview of Delta council.
[ Page 6525 ]
F. Gingell: Is the minister saying that it is up to Delta to determine whether or not the proposed development would meet those standards? Or is that the responsibility of your ministry?
Hon. J. Cashore: The permit that we have issued meets the regulatory standards that we are responsible for, so at the present time it is up to Delta to decide with regard to its business licence.
F. Gingell: Clearly there are concerns within the community that the public process, the hearing process and the advice to local residents may have met some technical requirements of the act but they certainly didn't meet the intent. I think that we are facing a position where the ministry could carry on, because unquestionably you have the ability and the power to do that. That may win the battle, but there is a very real feeling in Delta, particularly among the people on the south and west side of the North Delta bluff, who overlook this location, and the residents on River Road, that the public process hasn't taken place. Although there may have been some technical reference in The British Columbia Gazette back in January 1991, no one was aware of it. The first problem that I see in this exercise is that there really is a sincere belief that the public process hasn't taken place. I think that if you speak to the officials from your ministry that attended the meeting last Tuesday in the North Delta recreational centre, they will report to you that this was their feeling too. So without getting into any of the technical areas, I would ask that you review the way the public notification process took place and advise us whether you feel that the full intent of that process has been met.
Hon. J. Cashore: First of all, there has been no desire whatsoever on the part of the ministry to slip by on technicalities. Our role was to deal with a request for a permit for storage, and that was the extent of the ministry's responsibility there. The GVRD had responsibility for the air emission permit.
I would point out that we have not been advised that the process was flawed. We've heard that opinion from some groups and individuals out there, but we've gone over this before, and we've pointed out that the ministry officials took the steps they were required to take. I would point out that Dorothy Caddell, the waste reduction commissioner specializing in hazardous wastes, is going to be advising me on such things as consultation processes and whether there needs to be a newly defined threshold for when a public review would come into being.
I think that needs to be reviewed, but as the hon. member for Okanagan East was pointing out earlier, there are limitations on the number of personnel we have who can deal with the many applications for permits we have throughout the province. So there has to be some sort of line of demarcation between where you would automatically hold a hearing and where you would hold it in circumstances where, as a result of newspaper ads, you had received comments from the public. In this instance, as the member knows, there was even a canvassing of some of the houses in the vicinity. I understand there was an individual there who said his house wasn't canvassed, but I think it's quite possible that people could canvass my house and quite often there wouldn't be anybody there when they knocked on the door. I think there has been due diligence on this, and I look at any information that comes across my desk and try to make the most appropriate decision.
F. Gingell: We are dealing in this case with an incinerator that burns hazardous wastes; it isn't as though it's a plant to cook vegetables. It is a rather unusual item. So I would have thought that the fact that it is an incinerator for hazardous wastes would have required the greatest amount of public input. I appreciate, of course, that this happened long before the ministry was your responsibility, but surely the hazardous waste issue makes it somewhat different.
Hon. J. Cashore: It may be a fine point, and given the experience of this hon. member, it's a bit ironic that we would be discussing this. But I am advised that gasoline and hydrocarbon-producing fuels are not defined in the special waste regulations as hazardous waste. Again, given the process that commissioner Dorothy Caddell is involved in, in the interests of good public policy I am reviewing all aspects of the way we go about permitting. I have to remind hon. members that we don't have limitless resources, so we have to try to manage our responsibility in a way that is cognizant of the personnel resource available to us.
F. Gingell: I understand that the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment has come up with a series of specifications and recommendations for many of the guidelines and standards that such plants should meet. I appreciate that those particular guidelines or standards aren't part of provincial legislation at this time, but perhaps you could advise me what the relationship is between those standards and current regulations. Would you normally expect a plant of this type to be required to meet those requirements?
Hon. J. Cashore: The guidelines are advisory in nature, and the responsibility in that area would be with the GVRD, given their mandate.
F. Gingell: Could the minister explain the relationship? From what I understand you to say, it's a GVRD responsibility. Are they members of the CCME, the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment? How do we get recommendations made by such an august body that looks for standards across the country to influence a regional district?
Hon. J. Cashore: There is a memorandum of understanding between the GVRD and the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks with regard to the GVRD having standards that are equivalent to the standards of the Ministry of Environment. Given that as the Minister of Environment I am a member of the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, the advisory standards and guidelines that come through
[ Page 6526 ]
that process are part of the advice that we take in carrying through our policy. Perhaps if the hon. member could be more specific with regard to a specific guideline, we might be able to respond to that.
[4:45]
F. Gingell: As I understand it, the guidelines include recommendations that such a waste incineration facility should not be located closer than 100 metres to a river and 1,500 metres from the next residence. It is probably 100 metres from the river if they move it to the back of the property, but it certainly isn't 1,500 metres from the next residence. In fact, within a mile, which is what that is, I would imagine there are a lot of residences. The whole Sunshine Hills area would fall within that radius, I would have thought.
Hon. J. Cashore: It is my understanding that this is not technically classified as an incinerator. With regard to the guidelines that we are aware of, that would be part of both the Ministry of Environment guidelines and also any guidelines that CCME has put forward. So it is my understanding that this facility would not fit into that category. Be that as it may, it is still a facility whose air quality permit is issued by the GVRD -- granted, on the understanding of equivalency with the Ministry of Environment.
F. Gingell: You are saying that this is not an incinerator and therefore it shouldn't be required to fit these guidelines. As I understand it, this plant will operate at 800 degrees Celsius. There are two burn processes in it: one is in the 400 degrees Celsius range, and the second is in the 800 degrees Celsius range. I'm not a technician. I'd be quite happy, on a later date when I'm a little better briefed, to get into a discussion on the technical issues. But this whole process is involved in burning the hydrocarbons out of this contaminated soil and catching the ash in bags -- and there are big questions about that ash. It could have high degrees of lead in it, particularly if it comes from service stations that were operational for many years selling leaded fuels. I would be interested in your response to the question: what is an incinerator and what isn't?
Hon. J. Cashore: I do agree with the hon. member that it gets down to a fine point of how you define something -- is it an incinerator or is it not an incinerator? It is my understanding that this facility does not come under the definition of an incinerator as applied to the guidelines within the Ministry of Environment. It is also my understanding that it doesn't produce ash, but I've just heard the hon. member say that it does. We will have to review that. Perhaps the hon. member has information that he would like to make available on that -- this is the advice that I have been given. All I can say is that I don't want to get into a debate about whether it is or is not an incinerator. The point I'm making is that it has been deemed that the materials that would be stored -- for which we have granted a permit -- are not of the same hazardous nature, for instance, as PCBs and some other substances. Again, I need the advice and the review of Commissioner Caddell, so we will be reviewing this. Obviously this situation would be an excellent case in point, but that's about all I can say at this time.
F. Gingell: Thank you very much for your responses. I am sure that this estimates debate will carry on for a few more days yet, and perhaps before the end of the debate, you and I can revisit this issue when both of us have had a little time to do some research.
C. Serwa: I have a couple of questions -- one that I'd actually missed -- before I go to solid waste management. It has to do with the aboriginal question of hunting and fishing that we were discussing earlier. I didn't see it in the interim guidelines. I was wondering if the minister sees that aboriginal hunters and fishers will require provincial hunting or fishing licences. Will that transpire or not?
Hon. J. Cashore: I answered that question several times the other day. It's my understanding that they would be classified as permits.
C. Serwa: In that eventuality, then, aboriginal hunters will not be required to take the core hunter safety training course. Is that correct?
Hon. J. Cashore: That is correct.
C. Serwa: That's certainly very interesting. Then we can only conclude, because of the position the ministry has taken -- unless some sort of other initiative is taken -- that public safety is not a significant concern. The hunter training program was brought in because of the concern with safety, as well as environmental awareness, of those taking the course. How does the minister evade the responsibility when public safety becomes an issue in that particular facet?
Hon. J. Cashore: Public safety is a concern. These are interim guidelines, as I've said many times.
C. Serwa: I'm certainly happy, and certainly I and the people of British Columbia will be testing ourselves to understand quite how public safety is a concern, when a course mandated as necessary for all other people who participate in hunting activities -- as a matter of fact one cannot get a hunting licence without taking that particular course -- seems perhaps unnecessary, and nobody should have to take it. Is that the conclusion the minister suggests?
Hon. J. Cashore: We're in a time of transition that has a lot to do with some significant court decisions. We've canvassed this many times. The interim guidelines now in place have a process built into them that will involve a great deal of public input, including the points this member is making. I think it's unfortunate that the hon. member would use words like "evade" when very clearly we're addressing a very difficult problem. I welcome the issue he's raising. We
[ Page 6527 ]
will be considering that issue, along with many other issues, during the months to follow.
C. Serwa: I'm glad the minister is now going to try to address that particular question. I just want to raise the issue. Again, the issue has been created by the actions of the current government and with the lack of consistency in the application of legislation to all British Columbians. I have some reservations and concern with that, and we'll be watching that in the future with a great deal of interest.
Solid waste management is the other topic that fits into the general trend of conversation my hon. colleague, the Environment critic for the official opposition, has brought forward. The minister two years ago indicated a strong commitment to reduce the amount of waste going into solid landfills, and also litter control. He indicated his strong support, which was consistent with communities throughout British Columbia -- and hundreds and thousands of individuals -- with respect to the expanded bottle-deposit system. That appears to have either stalled or is proceeding at a very slow snail's pace. Perhaps the minister could advise us of the status of that particular program, and whether his commitment is still strong or has evaporated with his tenure in the Ministry of Environment.
Hon. J. Cashore: It continues to be a very important issue with this government. We're still committed to expanding the deposit return system. We're sensitive to some industry concerns that relate to costs associated with recycling. We're still doing some of the necessary consultation and the work that needs to be done in order to have the program in good shape when it's ready to go in the very near future.
C. Serwa: I'm very pleased to hear the process is continuing. I recognize that to a degree it is fraught with many problems and many challenges. Certainly the evidence I have seen indicates that the refillable glass bottle is a most efficient type of container. I would like to see progress made and the concerns of the various facets of the industry met. I know that the brewing industry, for example, runs a very efficient system at the present time, both with the recyclable aluminum cans and getting a very high percentage of the glass bottles returned. I would conclude by hoping that the minister continues to keep pressure on this particular issue and continues to negotiate and work out a suitable consensus that will allow this very important initiative to proceed.
Hon. J. Cashore: I would just like to add that the brewing industry is an excellent example, and we might ask why they are so successful. It's my understanding that they are close to 95 percent successful with the bottles and close to 90 percent with the cans. I think the fact that they unilaterally made the decision to increase the deposit from 5 cents to a dime is an indication of that corporate citizen being willing to take an appropriate position. If that had happened with other sectors of the economy, that would have helped greatly. Obviously, in expanding the system, we are going to have to look at a number of factors: what containers would be included, and also the amount of the deposits.
J. Tyabji: Going back to the State of the Environment Report, I thought we'd make a little bit more progress today, but there have been so many things intervening. We have a number of issues to canvass under environment in the next few days but I want to go through it fairly systematically. Some places we won't spend as much time on as others, but it is important to cover some of these things. When we bring the issues up, later on in the Environment debates, we can tie them back to the state-of-the-environment report.
[5:00]
Global climate change on page 10 follows some of the things that we were talking about. We've already gone through ozone so we don't have to go back to that. But in here there is some very compelling evidence that the climate change or the greenhouse effect is occurring to some extent. I'm just wondering if the Minister of Environment is tying into some of the reports that were done with regard to the impact on our fisheries or our coastlines. If so, what is the research suggesting right now? What is the Ministry of Environment doing with some of this evidence and some of the reports that have come forward with regard to B.C.? How do we move forward from here?
Hon. J. Cashore: We're working with Environment Canada to take the available data and try to extrapolate from that as well as we can what the potential impacts are on the environment of British Columbia. Having done that, we should be in a much better position to be making recommendations or any kinds of decisions that would deal with that emerging reality. I do realize that the report makes it clear that there is some information that certainly would tend to support the global warming trend, but more work needs to be done by Environment Canada and ourselves to extrapolate from that information.
J. Tyabji: The section of the book that really strikes home to me is when you look at some of the changes that are occurring across the province -- for example, the continuing drought in the Peace River country and some of the climatic aberrations that we've seen. The part that is really eye-catching is where it says: "Global warming could affect most parts of B.C.'s natural and human environment...." And it lists them. "Specific regional-scale implications are difficult to predict and would be far too numerous to elaborate here."
That makes me think that the author or the people who did this section -- it's hard to know from this perspective who wrote those words -- has a lot more information on what the potential problems are. Even if we go to the reference section, there's only a review of models for climate change and impacts on hydrology, coastal currents and fisheries. That's the only thing in the reference section, but there must be some other information that was used as the basis for writing the report. Is the Minister of Environment looking further into this? As we move down that paragraph it says: "Protected areas may be in the 'wrong place' to serve
[ Page 6528 ]
conservation objectives. Rising sea levels -- the IPCC estimates a rise of 21 to 71 centimetres by the year 2070 -- may affect coastal communities and ecosystems." Is the Minister of Environment looking into some of those implications, most particularly the conservation strategy?
Hon. J. Cashore: Yes.
J. Tyabji: Could the minister elaborate a little on how the Ministry of Environment is looking at these potential issues or the potential directions that we're going in here, specifically as related to conservation strategies?
Hon. J. Cashore: As I said before, we still have work to do in consultation with Environment Canada in order to extrapolate from this data. We carry on with our conservation strategies in a number of areas, which have been canvassed.
J. Tyabji: Is there a specific branch of the ministry that will be dealing with what we call future trends? We all know that even scientists who have closely monitored the concept of the greenhouse effect -- and there's a lot of debate in the scientific community about that -- can't come to closure as what the implications will be ten or 20 years down the road. There is a growing consensus that climatic aberrations are occurring, and there is still a debate as to whether or not that's a cyclical thing or due to human interference. My own personal perspective, which I'm prepared to put on the table here, is that it's definitely because of human interference.
Interjection.
J. Tyabji: As I said, my perspective is that because of human interference we have a situation here where the atmospheric emissions and the changes that we've effected over the face of the planet are having an impact. With that in mind, there will be future trends that we will have to deal with through the Ministry of Environment, and which we have to deal with today. Even though we've canvassed the issue of ozone depletion and education, we know that some of the ultraviolet radiation is affecting trees outside, fruit crops and the agricultural land base that the ministry has jurisdiction over. So is a part of the ministry looking at that and trying to grapple with new information coming in and assimilate it with the strategies that are going out?
Hon. J. Cashore: I think the hon. member has pointed out in her comments that much of the information is inconclusive. We have a number of people in the ministry who are working in the area of environmental protection and in conservation. The people who work in the biological fields within the ministry are very cognizant of this information. They are also concerned about the fact that we cannot extrapolate conclusive information at this point, but they are monitoring that.
With regard to the question of a specific branch of the ministry that has taken this on, the answer is no. But that does not suggest in any way that this material is not being taken seriously. It is, and I expect that will continue to be the case.
J. Tyabji: I have two specific questions, then. Who authored this section of the state-of-the-environment report? Who were the people behind this particular part?
Secondly, if a biologist or hydrologist had some data with regard to changing coastlines or some patterns that were coming with regard to coastal communities, where would that information be sent? Who is it within the ministry is responsible for accepting that information, other than the minister himself? Is there somebody who someone can contact, whether the same person who authored this report or the branch of the ministry responsible for that?
Hon. J. Cashore: The authors of the report are many in number. There were a number of people involved in producing what you have in front of you. With regard to how to contact the people in the ministry responsible for atmosphere or air quality, we have organizational charts and the government telephone book, and we have Dr. Jim McTaggart-Cowan, who is responsible for a section of the ministry that's dealing with air quality issues.
C. Serwa: I have a few comments -- perhaps more comments than questions. The minister has canvassed this quite well, I think, and has indicated that a great deal more information is required before we come to some definite conclusions. Certainly it is a concern in North America, and between ourselves and the United States we consume a disproportionately high percentage of the fossil-type fuel energy that is consumed in the world. In other jurisdictions -- certainly in Ireland, where they burn peat for generating power, or brown coal in Germany -- a great deal of that happens. In Japan they're utilizing a great deal of British Columbia coal, putting out carbon that's locked in and freeing it up into the atmosphere, and we're probably hastening the process.
It was interesting to note in the last week or so an article in one of the papers indicating that there was some species of tree or shrub in South America, I believe, aged between 2,500 and 3,500 years. Apparently, these climatic aberrations such as global warming have existed throughout that particular period of time, and it was obviously not humans or mankind that impacted that at that time. It seemed to be natural aberrations and great climatic variations, and they've apparently deduced this from looking at the annual growth rings of this particular species of trees -- a name which I have not heard before and without seeing the article I couldn't refer to.
I know that the Environmental Protection Agency in the United States is again monitoring and almost licensing carbon dioxide emissions in certain areas, so they have a great deal of concern. I think it is fair enough to be very conservative, and if we can reduce
[ Page 6529 ]
our impact on the environment, so be it. But with the type of research that is going into it and with this type of information, if they can correctly deduce that from annual tree-ring growth, perhaps our concerns with the impact of civilization and what we're doing has been overstated. It is more of a comment than a question, but I'm certain that the minister will respond, to a degree.
Hon. J. Cashore: I was listening with great interest, and I don't really have any follow-up comment.
J. Tyabji: Back to the minister, I think that this -- as I heard one member say -- "precautionary principle...." Although I'm not a subscriber to the precautionary principle as something that I'd put over my door, in this....
Interjections.
J. Tyabji: In this particular instance, I think that the problem we face with both the greenhouse effect, for lack of a better term, and ozone depletion is that because there has been debate in the scientific community about what the potential cause of these trends is, people are stalling as far as recognizing that there is a trend and trying to have an action plan in place to deal with it. I think we have to distinguish between those, even if we want to argue over what might cause it.
An example I would like to bring forward is that in this month's Omni magazine -- I'm not sure if the minister has read it or not -- there's a lengthy article about the ozone layer and how we have nothing to worry about, that it has been blown out of proportion, that society has developed a mass hysteria about it and that there are natural cycles of ozone-thinning. If the minister hasn't read it, I would urge him to do so. Reading it made me extremely angry, because it tends to downplay the fact that no matter what we want to attribute the cause to, if we put our heads in the sand and decide to spend all our time having a debate over what's causing something rather than recognize that something exists -- here are the repercussions, and here's our action plan to deal with it -- then we're going to be wasting a lot of energy. And unfortunately, by the time we decide to develop an action plan, it's going to be too late to deal with it.
What I think is happening now -- I'll call it the greenhouse effect, although I think that's an unfortunate term, but it seems to be the popular term used -- is exactly what we saw happen with the ozone depletion problem. People are now having a great debate over whether or not it exists and, now that there is data to suggest it exists, why it exists. I think that what we have to do is move to the next step and say: "All right, we see there's some evidence here." As the Social Credit Environment critic pointed out I think very wisely, we have seen that historically the earth of its own accord will put forward enough materials -- carbon or sulphur or whatever it throws up -- to interfere. So whatever the cause is, we know it has happened before.
But we also know we will have to deal with it. No matter what we argue is causing it, if the sea level starts to rise, we've got a problem. Taking into account our water diversions, whether the Nechako diversion or the damming of the Peace River and the Mackenzie Lake and all the things we've done to the province, if we end up with regional disparities that are going to be water scarcity, atmosphere, crop yield or forest regeneration problems -- whatever the cause is, whether it be man-made or natural -- there should be some kind of action plan.
With regard to global climate changes, here in a document produced by the Ministry of Environment we have some very strong language that I happen to subscribe to. I'll say that publicly and in Hansard. I believe that the concerns brought forward -- and that's just my perspective -- are very valid. But if we don't have an action plan to deal with this, if we don't even have within the Ministry of Environment an identifiable person who can be contacted.... Just as there's an output of information, anyone who reads this should have some recourse to say: "Well, this is what I have to offer to that dialogue or debate or the data-seeking process." If that's not in place, then I think there's a bit of a problem. We've got a document that I think is a very valid and thorough analysis, but we don't have the follow-up, which is the input from the public -- whether that be somebody from a university or someone with some expertise in that field. So the report does not do any good in terms of providing feedback. That's where I'm coming from on that. I'd really like to hear the minister's thoughts with regard to how the ministry is going to deal with what the public would like to give back after seeing the state-of-the-environment report, particularly the part on atmosphere.
[5:15]
Hon. J. Cashore: Hon. Chair, we're always interested in new information that adds to the body of data that is required to have a good sense of the state of the environment. I would point out that any contact with the minister's office would be routed to the appropriate person in the ministry, who would be able to field these kinds of issues. I notice the hon. member indicating some concern about that. I would not agree with that concern; I think the staff in the ministry does a very good job of responding to the issues that come in, which are myriad.
Part of the concern the hon. member outlines is the very problem that we're dealing with. We have so many kinds of information coming forward with inconclusive results that it is very time-consuming to deal with that appropriately. Only when we are able to take the data and have very clear trends will we know what we need to be addressing very specifically.
With regard to the state-of-the-environment report, the hon. member can direct concerns to the manager of the state-of-the-environment reporting -- which is a function that we have in the ministry now -- so that is another route.
[ Page 6530 ]
D. Lovick: One of the advantages of having this committee undertake its deliberations in this particular venue is that one can indeed communicate across the floor. I want to acknowledge the kindness of the official opposition Environment critic in allowing me this brief opportunity, and for allowing me to interrupt the flow of her questions.
I want to briefly change the subject. There is something I want to raise with the minister, because I'm not going to be here tomorrow, and the rumour is that you are going to let these estimates go through by tomorrow. I'm joking. I want to raise the question of environmental time bomb No. 2, ticking.... I'm referring, of course, to the Tatshenshini. A number of people throughout the province are now expressing concern. The forces seem to be marshalling and massing and asking what's going on. Above all, what is the process now underway, given that we apparently have had the report from CORE? I wonder if the minister will share with us his ministry's role in the Tatshenshini decision and perhaps bring us up to date.
Hon. J. Cashore: The role of the Ministry of Environment in an issue such as the Tatshenshini is to address it in concert with other ministries that have a concern. One of the roles is addressing the data-gathering. Last year much of it was focused from the corporate resource inventory initiative, trying to fill in some of the gaps with regard to mineralization -- that money went through the Ministry of Environment, but in that case it was administered by the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources -- and also being able to address the biological diversity issues from the role of the Ministry of Environment.
Generally, the Ministry of Environment mandate is to address biological diversity issues and environmental health issues and then to relate some of those issues to some of the other considerations that have to do with guide outfitting, tourism and the number of people coming through the area at the present time. For instance, in the Lands branch, we have responsibility for regulating the rafting industry -- that portion which is in B.C. waters.
In terms of the current state of the process, as the member for Nanaimo has pointed out, the issue of the Tatshenshini was referred to CORE. CORE came back with three recommendations to be considered, and those are now before government. I should point out that that review was not Windy Craggy mine-specific; it was region-specific. It is now up to government to decide on the next steps. I regret that I am not able to give you more information at this time, but such information is not yet available.
D. Lovick: Is it fair to say that the work -- the analysis, the evaluation and the data-gathering -- has been completed, and that now we're talking about the political decision?
Hon. J. Cashore: That is a very good question, but I'm not able to say at this point if in fact that is the case. We are having to take a look at all the information that is currently before us. I apologize for being vague in my answer, but it behooves me to do so, given the point that our considerations are at.
D. Lovick: Honesty certainly is a higher virtue than vagueness, I think -- or the absence of vagueness. I appreciate the minister's answers and look forward to more detailed information shortly.
J. Tyabji: The previous speaker gave me some ideas as far as some questions. I won't belabour the point. Seeing that we are almost finished here, there is one question I would like to ask with regard to process. To what extent will the decision with regard to Windy Craggy or Tatshenshini impact the future? Will it set a precedent with regard to conservation strategies in potential mining areas in the province?
Hon. J. Cashore: It's a hypothetical situation, and I will not be answering that at this time.
J. Tyabji: The question actually isn't hypothetical. I'm asking if this is a stand-alone decision. Or is this a new process for dealing with land use strategies? Is this going to set a precedent anywhere else in the province or is this meant to be a decision that will be taken in isolation?
Hon. J. Cashore: This is future policy. When the decision is announced, it will then be possible to comment on the various ramifications of that decision.
J. Tyabji: Seeing the time, I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The Committee rose at 5:24 p.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]